Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Bank Employees (Pay)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to receive the Report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes on bank staff salaries.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I received the Report on 21st February and it will be laid before the House and published on 28th February.

Mr. Hunt: Will the right hon. Lady now admit that her intervention in this matter was a great mistake, particularly as this was the first time a freely-negotiated settlement had been agreed between the banks and their staff representatives? Will she now at least undertake to make a very speedy decision on this Report as soon as possible after it has been published?

Mrs. Castle: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". The answer to the second part is "Yes, Sir".

Mr. John Page: When she is considering her attitude to the Report, will the right hon. Lady particularly bear in mind the importance of equal pay in the banking industry?

Mrs. Castle: There is a Question later on the Order Paper on that.

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to what extent she took into account

evidence about staffing difficulties in banking before referring to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the recent bank pay settlement agreed by employers and employees.

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consideration was given to the increase in productivity in the banking industry in deciding to refer the salary increases for bank employees to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity why she referred the bank pay settlement to the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and what consideration was given to the fact that bank employees under 23 years of age earn under £15 per week when deciding to make the reference.

Mrs. Castle: I referred this settlement to the Board because under incomes policy pay increases of the size involved could be justified only on productivity grounds and the banks were unable to measure the increase in productivity of the staff concerned.
Both the existing pay scales for junior staff and the banks' staffing difficulties were among the reasons for my allowing a 3½ per cent. interim increase pending the Board's report. Not all of those under 23 years of age earn under £15 a week.

Mr. Macdonald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that bank employees are baffled by the fact that their claim is referred, while others arising at a similar time are not, particularly in view of the fact that, because of the staff difficulties which she has admitted, it might have been thought that the criteria applying to staff shortages would apply rather than the normal criteria for the prices and incomes policy?

Mrs. Castle: As I made clear earlier, the Board's report will be published at the end of this week. I suggest that we wait and see how the Board deals with these points.

Dame Irene Ward: Would the right hon. Lady expand on the difference which has been referred to? Is it not a fact


that the heads of the nationalised industries are making their applications because of the salary structure of the nationalised industries? If they can do it under a nationalised structure, why cannot everybody do it if they want to?

Mrs. Castle: There again, as the hon. Lady knows, the Board is considering this question. I suggest that we await its report.

Occupational Pension Schemes

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has made of the cost to employers of giving protection of pension rights to employees leaving service before retirement age by preserving their rights in occupational pension schemes; and what she estimates to be the additional cost of giving protection of pension rights in such circumsances by granting transferability.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The cost of implementing the Government's proposals for deferred pensions would be £20 to £25 million a year. Universal transferability of occuptional pension rights is not at present regarded as practicable. Were it possible to achieve universal transferability the additional cost might be in the order of £100 million.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Do not those figures show the urgency of this problem? Will the hon. Gentleman please tell the House what he intends to do?

Mr. Hattersley: I think the House, and indeed the country, have been told already in the White Paper which we published a month ago what we intend to do.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will introduce legislation to regulate occupational pension schemes, defining the status, responsibility and duties of trustees, the conditions under which such schemes may qualify for tax reliefs and the method by which the rights of individuals are to be valued on change of employment, and to appoint a registrar with authority to supervise the administration of occupational pension schemes.

Mr. Hattersley: There are already statutory provisions affecting both trustees of funds, including pension funds, and Income Tax reliefs for pension schemes. The calculation of pension rights on change of employment will be dealt with in the legislation to be introduced on the preservation of pension rights. We shall be considering, in consultation with representatives of occupational pension schemes, what supervisory arrangements will be necessary to give effect to these proposals.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: While welcoming that statement, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that it would be disastrous for the future of the movement towards private occupational pension provision if there were to be publicised failures? Is not this something which the Government should take into account?

Mr. Hattersley: Certainly the Government would and do take this into account. Pensions schemes and the transferability element in the schemes are something which the Government are considering hand in hand with private firms. I am sure that in future investigations we will bear this point in mind.

Mr. Nott: Surely the White Paper does not commit the Government to introduce a transferability of pensions schemes? Why this reluctance on the part of the Government to do this? It would not cost the Government anything; what are the practical difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. Hattersley: The White Paper commits the Government to preservation of pensions schemes but the difficulties about full transferability are outlined in the White Paper. Some people would argue the impossibility of calculating both the entitlement in the old scheme and means of translating that entitlement into the new scheme.

Shipbuilding Industry (Industrial Relations)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what further steps she intends to take to establish a workable basis of industrial discipline within the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Hattersley: My Department in consultation with the Shipbuilding Industry Board continues to encourage improvements in industrial relations in this industry on the lines recommended in the Geddes Report, and substantial progress has been made. Proposals in the White Paper "In Place of Strife" for improving relations in industry generally are also relevant.

Mr. Hastings: Is not demarcation in this industry a particular problem resulting, indirectly at least, in loss of orders at present? Considering the Government's direct involvement on such a wide scale in the shipbuilding industry, will the hon. Gentleman pay attention to this in view of the debate we are to have soon?

Mr. Hattersley: I think demarcation disputes can be a severe cause of difficulties, although occasionally I think their importance and disadvantages are over-stressed. Because I believe they are an important hurdle to be overcome, I am glad, as I am sure the House is, that in the recent pay settlement both sides agreed to make comprehensive national agreements to cover possible demarcation disputes.

Mr. Brooks: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the recent decision to cease placing contracts for nuclear submarines at Cammell Lairds yards in Birkenhead was hardly the best way to encourage industrial morale in an area which has invested a great deal of time, money and expertise in this type of project?

Mr. Hattersley: I suspect my hon. Friend realises that that is not a question for me.

Mr. Rankin: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of schemes such as we have for productivity on Clydeside is a method of creating industrial peace, which most of us want today?

Mr. Hattersley: I certainly agree that that is one example, and there are others, of real progress in this field in this industry.

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity

what action she is taking to ensure that the staff at employment exchanges recommend the withdrawal of unemployment benefit as soon as it becomes probable that a claimant is not genuinely seeking employment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): Staff at employment exchanges are under instruction to refer for consideration by the independent statutory authorities any case where there is doubt about a claimant's eligibility for benefit because of an unreasonable attitude towards employment.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are very great variations in attitudes to this matter between the various offices of his Department? Is he further aware that, in a recent case in Liverpool, withdrawal was not recommended until the man had refused 26 jobs, and that recommendation was made only because the man had been found to be forging the signature of the employers to whom he was sent? Would the hon. Gentleman please issue instructions to his offices to be more diligent in the detection of such abuses?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am satisfied that the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, about which I have had no previous notice, will be an isolated one. By and large, the vast majority of people signing the registers are genuinely unemployed, and are willing to accept work that is available. I am satisfied, too, that the instructions given to the staff at the various employment exchanges are such that the necessary powers are available for dealing with anyone who might be dodging the column.

Mr. William Hamilton: To get this into perspective, could my hon. Friend give any figures for the number of people who have been refused unemployment benefit for the reasons stated in the Question?

Mr. Fernyhough: I could not give that information to my hon. Friend without notice. I will certainly see that he gets it by letter.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the instructions are the same as they have always been or whether they


have been reviewed in any way during the last year or two?

Mr. Fernyhough: No. They are precisely the same instructions which obtained when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were sitting on this side of the House.

Government Training Centres (Size of Classes)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the effect on the size of classes at Government training centres of the refusal of trade unions to accept trainees if numbers rise above a given maximum.

Mr. Hattersley: There have been no cases of refusal to accept trainees for this reason. The size of particular classes however may be temporarily reduced, after consultation with trade unions, to safeguard the employment prospects of trainees.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, while all restrictive practices are to be deprecated, this very restrictive practice, which seeks to nullify the effect of the Government training centres, is particularly to be delored?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is commenting on a restrictive practice which, I have already told him, does not exist. Any reductions in the size of classes is made as a result of a Government decision and is certainly not imposed by trade unions.

Equal Pay

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress is being made towards the phased introduction of equal pay for women; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the progress of her discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress on the implementation of equal pay.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she has received the report of

the joint study group set up to consider the costs of implementing equal pay; and whether she will make a statement.

Mr. Padley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she now expects to announce proposals to secure equal pay for men and women as defined in the International Labour Organisation Convention 100.

Mrs. Castle: There is nothing I can, as yet, usefully add to the statement I made on 20th January in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers).—[Vol. 776, c. 3.]

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that talks, studies, discussions and inquiries on equal pay have been held by the Government ever since January, 1965? Is she aware that women comprise the majority of the low-paid workers who should be receiving urgent priority under the Government's income policy?

Mrs. Castle: As my hon. Friend knows, we have now entered into an entirely new phase of the discussions in an attempt to work out the programme for implementation. The inquiry currently taking place is being held with the full agreement of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., who agree that it is necessary to know the effect of introducing equal pay into particular industries.

Mr. Speed: Is the Minister now in favour of equal pay for equal work agreements, like the current Ford agreement, but which nevertheless fall outside the scope of the Government's prices and incomes criteria?

Mrs. Castle: I always welcome progress towards equal pay, within the prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister prepared to modify the Government's view, that the implementation of equal pay would raise the national wages bill by 4 per cent. or so, in view of the estimate which has been made by the C.B.I. of something more in the region of 6 per cent.?

Mrs. Castle: It is this disagreement about the cost implications which is one of the reasons why we are having these very detailed consultations with the T.U.C. and C.B.I. A particular problem


is the effect in specific industries where it may be very much greater than the average.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Would my right hon. Friend remember that in industry and commerce, female labour, together with its male counterpart, is undergoing a process of job evaluation, which is a sophisticated exercise, comparing job content, without any reference to the sex of the job holder? Under such circumstances, would she direct that people who are assessed in equal grades are paid equal salaries or wages?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree that job evaluation is a very useful process on the way to securing equal pay for work of equal value. This is why I was hoping to see it decided that progress should be made with job evalution on women's work in the engineering industry.

Mr. R. Carr: Has the right hon. Lady given any indication to the management and unions at Ford's about her attitude to the equal pay aspect of that agreement, if, as we all hope, it comes into being?

Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. That is under consideration.

Unemployment (North-East Lancashire)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will give the latest unemployment figures for North-East Lancashire.

Mr. Fernyhough: At 10th February there were 3,486 persons registered as unemployed in North-East Lancashire and the percentage rate was 1·7 per cent. These figures are provisional.

Mr. Davidson: Would the Under-Secretary agree that, encouraging as these figures are, there is still need in North-East Lancashire, for new industry? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to urge upon her colleagues in the Cabinet that North-East Lancashire be given great priority in any discussions on the Hunt Committee's Report.

Mr. Fernyhough: We shall have to await the publication of that Report, but I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the figure of 1·7 per cent., roughly 50 per cent. lower than the national average, compares very favourably with

the figures in the development areas? We would be doing less than justice to the development areas if we were to try to take anything from them to give to the more prosperous areas, before the present imbalance has been rectified.

Strikes

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has formed of the financial loss to the United Kingdom through strikes since April, 1968; and what is her estimate of the total cost of paying workpeople in manual occupations the increases in wage rates demanded over the same period.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): I regret that it is not practicable to make such estimates.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Question baffles my hon. Friend, could he give me an explicit answer in one direction, namely, what happened in relation to the postal dispute? If negotiations had been entered into, would it not have saved a great deal of money?

Mr. Walker: There are two assumptions in my right hon. Friend's question, one that strikes arise from wages disputes and, secondly, that the strikes would not occur in the absence of an incomes policy. Neither of these assumptions do I accept.

Unemployment (Wales)

15. Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many people are currently unemployed in Wales, including Monmouthshire; and what was the average monthly number of unemployed in Wales, including Monmouthshire, during 1968.

Mr. Fernyhough: At 10th February, 1969, the provisional total number registered as unemployed in Wales, including Monmouthshire, was 41,500. The average of the 12 counts made in 1968 was 39,200.

Mr. Hooson: Would the Under-Secretary agree that these figures are still un-acceptably high? What is his evaluation of the prospects of bringing these down to somewhere near the national average?

Mr. Fernyhough: I readily agree that they are high, and that is why we have a


development area policy—one which is beginning to work in most development areas. There are 26,000 jobs in prospect, nearly two-thirds of which are for men and boys, in Wales. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate what the Government are doing in setting up new industries and Government administrative centres. He will be aware of what has happened at Llantrisant, Swansea and Holyhead.

Government Training Centres (Wales)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the average time lag in Wales between a man ceasing work in a job in which he has been declared redundant and his entry into a Government training centre for retraining; and what is the difference between men in their fifties and those in their over-fifties in this respect.

Mr. Hattersley: Waiting time varies from trade to trade and centre to centre and it is not possible to quote a meaningful average. In Wales suitable applicants can be allocated almost immediately to most engineering and construction training courses. For other trades the waiting time may vary from five weeks to over six months. It is not affected by the applicant's age.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great concern about fifties and over-fifties in Wales because as they are declared redundant in declining industries, unless they are retrained, they become virtually unemployable?

Mr. Hattersley: I am very conscious of the concern for and by the over-fifties in Wales and elsewhere. One of our jobs is to convince the over-fifties that if they apply for training they may well be able to receive it with benefit. I hope that that message will go out as a result of this Question.

Unemployment (Scotland)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the latest convenient figure for unemployment among men over 55 years of age in Scotland; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Fernyhough: At 13th January, 1969, 16,100 men aged 55 and over were

registered as wholly unemployed in Scotland. This was about 24 per cent. of the total male register, a rather lower proportion than in Great Britain as a whole. Ten thousand of these men were over 60. I am well aware of the difficulties of the older unemployed man and my Department will continue its efforts to encourage employers to make capacity, not age, the test of suitability for any job.

Mr. Dalyell: Without being complacent, are not these figures and facts a reflection of the success of the Government's development area policy? What proportion roughly has applied for retraining?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry that I cannot answer the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. However, having regard to the tremendous rundown in the basic industries in Scotland, these figures show how much more appalling the situation would have been without what the Government have done.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these people are people like bank managers who retire early and have to register with the unemployment exchange to safeguard their right to retirement pension at the age of 65?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry that I cannot give that information without notice.

White Paper "In Place of Strife"

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations she has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the White Paper, "In Place of Strife".

Mrs. Castle: None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is important that her White Paper be thoroughly discussed whatever our views on it? Would she discover why copies of the White Paper have not been available in the Stationery Office and through official sources to those people, such as Roman Catholic workers' organisations, who are seriously interested in these matters and who have been trying to obtain them?

Mrs. Castle: I am very surprised by what my hon. Friend says. Assuming that he is referring to the situation in Scotland, I can assure him that the


Stationery Office in Edinburgh has always had copies of the White Paper in stock and, I understand, could and can meet any order. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any complaints he has received, I will look into them.

Mr. Dalyell: Certainly.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend's Answer was to the effect that she had received no representations from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Would it have made any difference if she had?

Mrs. Castle: My right hon. Friend knows full well that all the major affiliates of the Scottish T.U.C. are affiliated to the T.U.C., with which I have had and will continue to have detailed consultations.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in preparing the legislation based on the proposals outlined in the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", if she will provide that contracts between unions and employers, freely entered into, shall be legally binding, unless the parties concerned specifically agree otherwise.

Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. The reasons for the Government's rejection of the hon. Member's proposal are given in paragraph 43 of the White Paper.

Mr. Smith: But is not this the crux of any plan to reform industrial relations, and is not this the experience of practically every other industrial country in the world?

Mrs. Castle: Legal enforcement of collective agreements is the practice in some countries, but we believe it important that we should decide our policy in the light of our own special position and conditions. While the strike record of some countries which have legal enforceability is better than that in Britain, it is appreciably worse in other countries, notably America and France.

Mr. Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way in which we can make progress is by ensuring that negotiations are carried on by people who know the job? I hope that she will not follow the hare which has been started on the benches opposite, but will give more power to the shop stewards, which will not suit hon. Members opposite.

Mrs. Castle: As I explained in the White Paper, my approach is that it is for the employer, for management, to convince the trade unions that making agreements legally enforceable is in their joint interest. It is a matter for management.

Mr. R. Carr: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the evidence, which is not in the White Paper, for her belief that Britain is the only country in which nine out of ten strikes take place in breach of agreements and the only major industrial country in which contracts are not binding?

Mrs. Castle: We shall no doubt have a full opportunity of deploying these debating points next Monday.

Wage Rates

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the percentage increase in wage rates in 1968; and what was the last year in which that rate of increase was exceeded.

Mr. Harold Walker: During the period end-December, 1967, to end-December, 1968, there were increases of 6·9 per cent. in the index of basic weekly rates of wages and 7·1 per cent. in the index of basic hourly rates of wage. 1956 was the last calendar year in which these percentage rates of change were exceeded.

Mr. Carr: When did the Government change their hopeless policy, which was announced on 21st March by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, that incomes should rise more slowly than the cost of living over the current financial year?

Mr. Walker: The qualification which I think my right hon. Friend added was, having due regard to the growth of production and productivity. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the latest figures, he will see that both output per head and productivity are rising very rapidly indeed and make up the gap.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do not the figures show the absolute futility of an attempt to intervene in wage negotiations by using compulsory powers?

Mr. Walker: I do not think that they show anything of the kind. The policy


is clearly related to levels of earnings, and increases in wage rates and scales do not necessarily find their reflection in earnings.

Mr. Manuel: But does not my hon. Friend recognise that figures about percentage increases are most misleading in many instances? In some cases, the lower-paid workers have had no advance at all.

Mr. Walker: There are no statistics to confirm my hon. Friend's contention.

Older Workers (Redundancy)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is aware that a significant number of skilled men over the age of 45 years cannot obtain comparable employment after being made redundant; if she will have a special survey made of this problem; and what proposals she has for remedying it.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am aware of the difficulties experienced by older workers who become redundant although these affect unskilled more than skilled men. It is my Department's policy to encourage employers to make capacity, not age, the test of suitability for any job and the proposals in the Redundancy Rebates Bill for changing the rate of rebate on redundancy payments are designed to discourage undue concentration of redundancy among older workers. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, retraining courses are available at Government Training Centres which are being substantially expanded.

Mr. Smith: But is it not a fact that many companies are refusing to consider skilled men over the age of 45 who have lost their jobs? Can a nation in economic difficulties afford to dispense with the skilled services of such people?

Mr. Fernyhough: No, it cannot, and I am surprised that employers, particularly in the area which the hon. Gentleman represents, should take that line. The hon. Member will be glad to know that, compared with this time last year, when there were four skilled men out of work for every three jobs available, this year there are approximately four jobs available for every three skilled men out of work.

Commission on Industrial Relations

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the average age of the members of the Commission on Industrial Relations so far appointed.

Mr. Harold Walker: The average age of those so far nominated for appointment is about 63 years.

Mr. Lane: With all respect to the distinguished members of the Commission, does the hon. Gentleman really expect the Commission to be sufficiently dynamic and manifestly impartial?

Mr. Walker: I am astonished that hon. Members should suggest that the Government should apply age standards to those who serve it when they are not applied to Members of the House. There are plenty of good tunes played on old fiddles, as the House will testify.

Hourly Wage Rates

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether increases in average wage rates in all industries and services during 1968 were contained within the guidelines set by the Govenment's prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Harold Walker: Yes, bearing in in mind that certain long-term commitments, dating from before the prices and incomes standstill, were implemented during the year.

Mr. Alison: How can the Under-Secretary conceivably come to the House and say that average increases of 7 and over 7 per cent. in hourly wage rates for all industries and services between December, 1967, and December, 1968, are still within the criteria of prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Walker: I should draw to the hon. Member's attention the fact that the period for which he has asked for figures is not strictly comparable with the present phase of policy, which did not start until March.

Engineering Industry (Local Agreements)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity the latest estimate of the number of local,


plant and shop floor agreements which have been concluded in the engineering industry since the national award; how many of these took account of the productivity guidelines contained in that award; and what is the average increase in rates and earnings arising from these settlements.

Mr. Harold Walker: It is not possible to estimate the number of local plant agreements which have been concluded since the implementation of the national engineering agreement on 16th December, 1968.

Mr. Biffen: If it is not possible to estimate the number, how can the hon. Gentleman assert that they have all been stringently tested, which, we understand, is the requirement of the Government's policy?

Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Member has not noticed that only about nine weeks have elapsed since the implementation of the main agreement. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that any local agreements inspired by the main agreement have been entered into.

Wages and Salaries

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity the estimated percentage increase in wage rates and earnings during 1968; what were the corresponding figures for salaries; and how these compare with the norm indicated by the incomes policy.

Mr. Harold Walker: During the period end-December, 1967, to end-December, 1968, there was an increase of 6·9 per cent. in basic weekly rates of wages or minimum entitlements. Basic hourly rates increased by 7·1 per cent.
It is not possible to give a comparable figure for wage earnings for the calendar year 1968, but according to the results of the half-yearly inquiries the average weekly and hourly earnings of full-time manual workers increased by 7·8 per cent. and 7·1 per cent., respectively, between October, 1967, and October, 1968. The results of the annual inquiry into the earnings of administrative, technical and clerical employees held in October, 1968, are not yet" available.

Mr. Biffen: Inasmuch as that information reveals the current state of movement

in wages and salaries, is it the hon. Gentleman's conclusion that these increases above the norm indicate an inadequacy of statutory powers or ineffective application of the statutory powers which the Government possess?

Mr. Walker: I have already pointed out once to the House that increases in wage rates and scales do not necessarily find their reflection in earnings. The policy is directed at imposing a ceiling on earnings. Secondly, as to earnings, which I dealt with fully on 20th January, I pointed out then to the hon. Member that earnings have to take into account a number of factors which are not provided for in the policy, such as, for example, increases in payments by results and overtime earnings.

Mr. Hastings: What sparked off what the Minister referred to just now as the present phase of the incomes policy? What is this?

Mr. Walker: The present phase of incomes policy started in March, 1968. I thought that the House was aware of this.

Overseas Telegraphists (Wage Dispute)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether the settlement of the overseas telegraphists' wage dispute was in conformity with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Harold Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In that case, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the approved formula for any firm which has difficulty concerning a productivity deal, either with the Department of Employment and Productivity or Mr. Jones, is to disconnect a piece of labour-saving machinery and then reintroduce it as the condition for its productivity deal?

Mr. Walker: That is a gross slander on the people who work for the Post Office. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that they deliberately sabotaged new equipment or refused to accept its implementation until they were paid for it. That is quite untrue. The fact is that the equipment was disused before the negotiations of the recent month arose and part of the productivity package was


the acceptance of the need eventually to reactivate it.

Mr. R. Carr: If this deal was in the terms of the Government's incomes and productivity policy, why did it need a strike to prove it?

Mr. Walker: This was explained fully to the House by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on 20th January, 30th January and 3rd February. He explained the position clearly and I have nothing to add to what he said on those occasions.

Industrial Accidents

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what proposals she is considering to amend the method of calculating the frequency rate figure of industrial accidents.

Mr. Fernyhough: After consultation with the; Research and Statistics Sub-Committee of the Industrial Safety Advisory Council, it has been decided to discontinue publication of figures of accident frequency rates, because experience has shown these to be unreliable. My Department will continue to publish figures showing the incidence rates of legally notifiable accidents, and will also compile additional incidence rates of accidents which result in severe injuries.

Mr. Watkins: In welcoming my hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him when the new method will come into operation, or, at least, the old one be discontinued?

Mr. Fernyhough: As soon as possible.

Industrial Retraining Courses (Portsmouth)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many men and women in the Portsmouth area have completed industrial retraining courses in each of the past three years.

Mr. Hattersley: Figures for the whole field of industrial retraining are not available. The numbers who completed courses at Government Training Centres were 88 in 1966, 96 in 1967 and 76 in 1968.

Mr. Judd: In view of the above average unemployment in the city and the

impact on the city of the White Paper on Defence, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the facilities for courses in Portsmouth will be increased as soon as possible?

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot give my hon. Friend assurances about facilities within Portsmouth itself, but I can certainly assure him that facilities within travelling distance of Portsmouth are available for men who may need them. Clearly, the Government will keep under review the general position in the area.

White Collar Workers (Productivity)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress her Department has made in evaluating the general criteria by which white collar productivity is to be measured; and if she will discuss such proposed criteria with the Trades Union Congress before submitting to the National Board for Prices and Incomes any claims for salary increases by white collar employees.

Mr. Harold Walker: My right hon. Friend has asked the National Board for Prices and Incomes to carry out a second inquiry into productivity bargaining with special reference to the application of productivity measurement and productivity agreements to clerical and other non-manual work. I think it would be desirable to await the Board's report before taking a final view on the matters raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of the admitted difficult of measuring the productivity of many white collar workers, would it not be desirable for my right hon. Friend to make a statement on this topic at an early date, so that white collar workers can know precisely where they stand in relation to the prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Walker: I referred to the Board's report on the pay of gas staffs on 20th January, when I drew attention to the fact that the Board suggested that the approach to the question of white collar productivity put forward in its Report was potentially of wide significance. I would not want to go further than that today in anticipating the Board's report on its considerations.

Mr. Biffen: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the chairmen of nationalised industries come within the designation "white collar workers"? Could he further say that, when the Prices and Incomes Board's report on the pay of senior executives is received, special indication will be given of how the House and the country will be able to measure the productivity of these people?

Mr. Walker: We had better await the report, I think.

Mr. Tomney: Would my hon. Friend give an indication regarding the Chairman of the Horserace Betting Levying Board? Does he qualify as a white collar worker? He has had a 50 per cent. increase in 12 months. How was that decision arrived at?

Mr. Walker: On white collar workers, how he comes to justify—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend will write to me about this, I will consider the matter. I was not aware of it up to now.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Trade Unions (Growth and Reorganisation)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the policy of her Department regarding the growth and reorganisation of trade unions on the basis of separate organisations for white collar and blue collar workers.

Mr. Harold Walker: As Paragraph 54 of the White Paper makes clear, the Government are anxious to encourage trade unionism and the extension of collective bargaining machinery among white collar and other categories of employees. The question whether white collar employees should be in separate organisations is primarily a matter for the individuals and unions concerned.

Mr. Brooks: Is that entirely so? Would my hon. Friend now care to clarify the Government's attitude towards the Pearson court of inquiry's recommendations regarding the two white collar unions? Would he not agree that the Government's attitude on this vexed problem will establish the future evolution

of trade unions for many years to come?

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend will be seeking to answer a Question on this matter at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend consider setting up a system of elections so that the workers themselves can decide which unions should represent them, rather than the unions taking arbitrary decisions on their behalf?

Mr. Walker: The Government considered this, as did the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and, on balance, we thought that this was not the best way of tackling the problem. We have our own approach to this, embodied in the White Paper on industrial relations.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend remember that, in industry, there have traditionally been two sides, namely, the employers and the employees, and that I believe that it is invidious in 1969 that we should now sub-divide the workers into those who wear white collars and those who wear blue overalls? I believe that the trade unions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must concentrate his beliefs when asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Walker: I understand the point which my hon. Friend was seeking to make and I entirely agree with it. I would ask him to read the White Paper, in which we make the same point with great emphasis.

Mr. R. Carr: How can the hon. Gentleman make his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) tally with what is said in Paragraph 18 of the White Paper, about the need to give workers the chance to participate themselves in deciding future changes?

Mr. Walker: The question of the hon. Member referred to balloting workers to decide which union they should belong to, and I said that we and the Royal Commission had considered this and, on balance, decided that it was not the best way to tackle the problem. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is, or that my answer is in some way inconsistent with the White Paper policy, no doubt


he will develop that argument when we have our debate next week.

Overtime Working

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will take steps to limit statutorily the number of hours of overtime working in industry.

Mr. Harold Walker: I do not think legislation would provide a practicable solution to the problem of overtime working, at the present time.

Mr. Brooks: What is the practical solution then? Would my hon. Friend not agree that the amount of excessive, systematic overtime worked in industry has now become a soft option for both management and workers, which is a discouragement to high productivity and the growth of basic earnings? Is it not time to look at the very valuable suggestions contained in the research paper submitted to the Donovan Commission on this very point?

Mr. Walker: We have had a very good look at Mr. Whybrew's paper, which condemned excessive overtime in industry. I share that condemnation of excessive overtime, but I think that it is a matter primarily for industry itself to resolve. The Government's policy on productivity bargaining, none the less, holds out incentives for reducing overtime as part of a productivity deal.

Pensioner Households (Indices of Retail Prices)

Mr. McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is now able to give a date for the publication of special indices of retail prices for pensioner households.

Mr. Hattersley: I regret that I am unable at present to give a firm date, but my right hon. Friend expects to be able to publish the figures by the end of June.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is a most disappointing Answer. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there are many pensioners who are sick and tired of waiting for jam tomorrow, while the Government, in this respect, say that they can do nothing for them?

Mr. Hattersley: I am impressed by the picture of old-age pensioners urgently awaiting the production of another Government statistical index, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the compilation of such a series takes time, certainly if we are to produce it accurately and in a way which is seen to be accurate. That is essentially what we shall be doing between now and June.

Wage Increases (Ceiling)

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on what grounds she now decides that exceptions to the ceiling of 3½ per cent. on wage increases are allowed.

Mr. Harold Walker: On the grounds laid down in the White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969.

Mr. Speed: Would the Minister not agree that the ceiling of 3½ per cent. for lower-paid workers is quite inadequate?

Mr. Walker: This question has been dealt with time and time again, and we have pointed out that one of the criteria set out in paragraph 34 provides for increases for up to 3½ per cent. for lower-paid workers, and it is the Government's policy that within the framework of an overall settlement the ceiling of 3½ per cent. may be exceeded for lower-paid workers if higher-paid workers will accept less than 3½ per cent.

Municipal Bus Workers (Pay)

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many claims for increases in pay for employees of municipal bus undertakings, in addition to the increases paid since 26th December, 1968, have been notified to her Department; and how many she has approved.

Mr. Harold Walker: Since 26th December, 1968, eight pay proposals affecting municipal bus workers have been notified to my Department. In six of these cases no objection was raised to payment.

Mr. Dance: Is the Minister aware that there is bitter anger amongst skilled maintenance workers in Midland Red who were recently granted a pay rise of


25s. 1d. to bring them into line with Birmingham and Coventry municipal bus employees but who, thanks to the Prices and Incomes Board interfering, are getting only 10s. 2d.? This is an obvious injustice. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. Walker: I am very well aware that there are disparities between groups employed in similar tasks, but these are not new but are a legacy of the free bargaining system and of the operation of the free market beloved by the party opposite. We are not able to remedy these disparities very quickly, within the framework of the present policy.

Mr. R. Carr: Does the Minister not realise that the case brought to his notice by my hon. Friend has nothing to do with a free market but is a direct result of the statutory incomes policy?

Mr. Walker: Quite the contrary. The differences between the incomes of bus workers in the municipal sector and of workers in the company sector have existed for a long time and certainly before the introduction of the Government's policy.

Mr. Dance: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Wages (Local Agreements)

Mr. Waddington: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many wage agreements made at local, company or plant level in industries for which national wage increases have been approved during the past 12 months have been notified to her Department; how many of them she has approved; and how many she has disallowed.

Mr. Harold Walker: Information covering the past 12 months could not be supplied without incurring disproportionate expense. During the past six months my Department has dealt with 531 cases involving some pay improvement for workers in industries where national wage increases have been agreed, of which 511 were accepted and 20 rejected.

Mr. Waddington: In these cases was account taken of increases at national levels, and how at the time was account

taken of national agreements which might or might not be sanctioned by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Walker: Certainly, local productivity deals coming before my Department for approval are seen against the background of national wage increases which have taken place, but national increases which are pending usually provide some offsetting arrangements.

Mr. Waddington: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether it remains her policy that in considering increases in pay settled at national level account must be taken of probable increases at local level and conversely that increases in rates settled at plant level should take account of relevant increases settled at other levels; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Government's policy remains as stated by the hon. Member.

Mr. Waddington: How can this in fact be done? How can local agreements take account of national agreements which, at the time of the local agreements, are being negotiated and might or might not finish by being sanctioned by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Walker: There are difficulties, but I have just explained to the hon. Member that agreements coming before my Department and affecting local settlements very often include some offsetting arrangements to take account of national increases either pending or current.

Employees (Remuneration)

Mr. Mawby: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many cases intervention by her Department has resulted in a reduction in the rate of remuneration paid as a result of agreements made between employees and employers; and what were the average earnings of the employees concerned.

Mr. Harold Walker: Because the numbers of settlements submitted to my Department cannot readily be distinguished from the much larger numbers of proposed settlements I am unable to give a precise answer to the first part of


the question. Many agreements or proposals for agreements have been modified after discussion with my Department. I regret that to provide an answer to the second part of the question would have involved a disproportionate expenditure of time and money.

Mr. Mawby: Does not the Answer which the hon. Gentleman has given show that never has so much been done by so many people with such little result?

Mr. Walker: I just cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Pay Increases

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to what extent it remains her policy that increases in pay are justified where it is recognised that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen seriously out of line with the level of remuneration for similar work; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Walker: Increases in pay up to a maximum of 3½ per cent. per annum are justified in the circumstances described by the hon. Member, provided that, in the words of the White Paper, the pay in question "needs in the national interest to be improved".

Ships Clerks and Agricultural Workers

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has made of the increase in productivity during the past 12 months of tally clerks employed at the London Docks and of agricultural workers, respectively; and what are the present average weekly earnings of adult male workers in each of these two occupations.

Mr. Harold Walker: The tonnage of foreign trade other than fuels handled in the London enclosed docks per ships' clerk employed increased between 1967 and 1968 by some 15 per cent. Output per person employed in agriculture was estimated in the recent report of the National Beard for Prices and Incomes to have been increasing at an annual rate of 6 to 7 per cent. The current average weekly earnings of ships clerks are estimated to be about £33 and of adult male

agricultural workers in England and Wales about £17.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does not the hon. Gentleman think there is something rather strange about that Answer?

Mr. Walker: Nothing so strange, I think, as the supplementary question.

Road Haulage Industry (West Midlands)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations she has received from road haulage companies in the West Midlands about the effect of strike action by their employees on wage increases in excess of increases in productivity; and what reply she has sent.

Mr. Harold Walker: Last year two road haulage firms in the West Midlands wrote to my regional office in Birmingham expressing doubt about the productivity justification for pay increases given after strikes had taken place. After consultation with the employers these settlements were referred to the N.B.P.I. for examination along with a number of other road haulage agreements which had already been implemented. The Board criticised the West Midlands agreements on the ground that they did not provide for realistic scheduling. They went on to suggest guidelines for future productivity bargaining in the industry. My Manpower and Productivity Service is available to help the industry in future negotiations.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: What happens as a result of the persons employed in these businesses being deprived of what they would otherwise get, and in many cases have already received?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry, but I really do not follow that.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: What happens in those industries and undertakings where persons employed therein have been deprived of what they struck for, and received in other cases where they were honestly agreed, but have been deprived thereof?

Mr. Walker: Nothing has happened. No one has been deprived of anything.

Unemployment (Maltby and Rawmarsh)

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the number of unemployed in the Maltby and Raw-marsh areas for the years 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, respectively.

Mr. Fernybough: As the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

TOTAL NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED IN THE AREAS COVERED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AT MALTBY AND ROTHERHAM (WHICH INCLUDES RAWMARSH)





Malyby
Rotherham





Total registered unemployed
Temporarily stopped included in total
Total registered unemployed
Temporarily stopped included in total


13th January, 1964
…
…
220
1
1,049
45


13th July, 1964
…
…
120
—
487
7


11th January, 1965
…
…
157
6
638
21


12th July, 1965
…
…
111
1
459
20


10th January, 1966
…
…
152
8
617
102


11th July, 1966
…
…
128
27
739
213


9th January, 1967
…
…
299
42
2,216
971


10th July, 1967
…
…
288
35
1,736
263


8th January, 1968
…
…
470
14
2,334
370


8th July, 1968
…
…
428
5
2,210
97


13th January, 1969
…
…
560
12
2,498
157

Forklift Trucks (Safety Precautions)

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will seek to amend the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, so as to make provision for better safety precautions in regard to the use of forklift trucks in factories, in the light of the evidence sent to her by the right hon. Member for Leyton.

Mr. Fernyhough: This question is being dealt with in the current revision of safety, health and welfare legislation.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does "dealt with" mean that the present state of affairs will be altered? Is my hon. Friend aware that a constituent of mine was killed, and that there is no way at the moment of putting right the kind of accident which led to his death?

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, it is our intention in the safety, health and welfare legislation to include provisions relating

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would it be asking too much to ask that my right hon. Friend should get in touch with the President of the Board of Trade, because in the two areas I have mentioned the average is much higher than the national average?

Mr. Fernyhough: I accept the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, and I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to what he has had to say.

Following is the information:

to the construction and maintenance of forklift trucks, the prevention of danger from slipping loads, and the certification of the safe working load, and the training of drivers.

Rolls-Royce (Redundancies)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations she has received from the unions and the management of Rolls-Royce regarding the closure at Stag Lane, Edgware, and at Bristol to assist in effecting a reconciliation between the two sides.

Mr. Hattersley: No representations have been received. Officers of my Department have, however, been in touch with both sides and it is clear that intervention by my Department would not be useful at present. We will of course keep in touch with developments.

Mr. Tuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that the workers at Bristol and Stag Lane, who were very concerned about the prospective lay-offs, have written asking the


managing director of Rolls-Royce to meet them, and that he has written back saying that this is a purely Bristol Siddeley affair? What does my hon. Friend propose to do about it?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not propose to do anything about that last statement, since the facts are by no means clear. In the light of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it should be said that the company has been anxious to discuss the phasing and timing of redundancies with the unions involved, which my Department regards as altogether appropriate. If these redundancies come about, we hope that they will be preceded by such discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUCE REYNOLDS (PROSECUTION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General why Mr. Bruce Reynolds was prosecuted.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): There was abundant evidence that Mr. Reynolds had robbed a mail train, and it was in the public interest that he should be prosecuted for that offence.

Mr. Lewis: I rather anticipated that reply. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is, and was, abundant evidence also that a hundred and one other people were living on the ill-gotten gains and were committing illegal actions? Why was not action taken against them?

The Attorney-General: I am fascinated by the number of a hundred and one. I have no knowledge in respect of that. If my hon. Friend has information of any criminal offence committed by others in connection with the train robbery, I shall be delighted to receive information from him.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROSECUTIONS (INITIATION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General by what authority he acts when refusing to initiate a prosecution against persons who have consistently and knowingly broken the law in spending money which they know to have been stolen.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General is given authority by our law to decide whether or not to prosecute in cases referred to him. I do not think it would be helpful to discuss what action I would take in a hypothetical case.

Mr. Lewis: Following this and the previous Question, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that the wife of this mailbag robbery expert has been writing in a newspaper and getting paid for it and disclosing that she and others have not only been living in luxury on the money, but have been committing other offences? When I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take action, however, he takes no action. Will he now consider taking action?

The Attorney-General: I have no knowledge of any criminal offences committed by Mrs. Reynolds which would justify separate proceedings being taken against her. It is not the practice to institute criminal proceedings against the wife of a criminal where there is no evidence that the wife has taken any part in the crime for which the husband has been convicted, even though by continuing to live with her husband after the crime she may have enjoyed the illegal proceeds.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION (CONVEYANCING)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Attorney-General when the scheme for allowing certain increases in certain conveyancing fees is expected to become operative.

The Attorney-General: The Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Remuneration of Solicitors included recommendations for both increases and decreases in solicitors' charges. Since the Board reported there have been changes in various factors affecting remuneration and it is desirable that these should be reviewed by the Board. In these circumstances my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable Friend the First Secretary of State propose to make arrangements for the Board


to keep solicitors' remuneration under continuous review. In the first instance the Board will be asked to investigate and report on the changes that I have mentioned. Thereafter it will be for the statutory committees to prescribe new scales of charges in the light of the Board's recommendations.

Mr. Ellis: But, in the lower levels, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that they are proposing increases? Is he further aware that, in Bristol, where there is a number of ground rents, a constituent of mine who pays a ground rent of £2 10s. and wishes to buy it out will have to pay only £25 in toto but also proposed legal fees of £24? Is this not absolutely scandalous? Will he look at this again? Do not lawyers make the most militant trade unionists look like novices when pursuing restrictive practices?

The Attorney-General: I know that the Board recommended increases in a certain range of conveyancing charges and decreases in others, but, as I said, the matter is now being reviewed by the Board and falls for future consideration by the appropriate committees.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply circumventing the policy of his right hon. Friend the First Secretary, who is sitting beside him, by doing this? How long will this matter be under review? Why does a procedure apply to solicitors' fees which does not normally apply to other people whose charges come before the Board?

The Attorney-General: The procedure is continuous and there is no circumventing of the policy of my right hon. Friend. On the contrary, she is a most consenting party to what is proposed.

STEEL INDUSTRY (INTER-UNION DISPUTE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Judd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the trade union recognition dispute in the steel industry.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 79.
The House will recall that the decision of the British Steel Corporation in May last year to restrict recognition for supervisory, technical and clerical grades to the six unions then already recognised nationally by the corporation and to refuse it to two white collar unions—A.S.T.M.S. and C.A.W.U.—led to industrial action by white collar employees in some steel plants and in the motor industry, where large numbers of workers were laid off in consequence.
I appointed a Court of Inquiry into the dispute under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson. It recommended that the two white collar unions should be given national recognition and that all the unions concerned should seek to agree spheres of influence for recruitment purposes.
Following the publication of the report of the inquiry, the corporation made determined efforts in discussions with the two groups of unions to find a solution which would be broadly on the lines recommended in the report and which would be acceptable to both groups. In a further endeavour my Department also had discussions with all the parties. Unfortunately, no basis for an agreed solution could be found.
Faced with this impasse, and given the recommendation of the Pearson inquiry, the corporation gave notice in December last of its intention to grant recognition at plant level on equal terms to the "six" and to the "two", while leaving the question of national recognition in abeyance. The "six" indicated, however, that if this policy were implemented, they would instruct their members to take orders only from staff who were members of the "six" and to handle only work approved by members of the "six". If carried out, this would undoubtedly have caused serious disruption of production in the corporation's plants, and had widespread repercussions on industry generally.
In this situation, I sought the help of the T.U.C., which agreed to consider the problem, and held intensive consultations through its


Finance and General Purposes Committee with the two groups of unions last month. In the light of the ocmmittee's report, however, the T.U.C. General Council felt obliged to conclude that there is at present no possibility of all the unions reaching common agreement on this problem.
It therefore recommended that the corporation should recognise the "six" as collectively the most representative group, and in itself an adequately representative group. This recommendation was made in the knowledge that the "six" will maintain that recognition of the "two" should be limited to the extent that applied immediately before vesting day.
My constant endeavour throughout this dispute has been to work for a solution which could be accepted by all concerned. This was the primary purpose of Lord Pearson's recommendations, of the subsequent efforts made by the corporation, and of my request to the T.U.C. I am in no doubt that this would be the most desirable form of solution. I am now equally clear, however, that this is not in practical terms a present possibility.
This has been confirmed by the T.U.C.'s consultations last month, and by the extensive discussions which the corporation has held since the T.U.C.'s recommendation was reached. I have no power in this situation to arbitrate or to impose a solution on the parties.
In these circumstances, the corporation must now consider as a management responsibility how it should discharge, in relation to the grades of employee concerned, its statutory duty for deciding matters of trade union recognition. I understand that it is giving urgent consideration to this matter, and expects to reach its decision in the near future.

Mr. Judd: In view of the wider significance of this whole sorry story, not only for the steel industry but for industry throughout: the country and relations within industry, can my right hon. Friend explain why she is not to refer the issue to the new Commission on Industrial Relations? Can she explain what criteria she will use in future in deciding whether or not to refer disputes to the new Commission?

Mrs. Castle: The British Steel Corporation asked me whether I would consider referring the matter to the C.I.R. But

when the C.I.R. is set up in the immediate future there will be no possibility of statutory backing for its recommendations in inter-union recognition disputes until the legislation to give effect to the Government's White Paper proposals has been enacted. Until then, my powers are confined to conciliation and inquiry. There has already been a full inquiry, and the powers I already possess have been fully used.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the right hon. Lady say why, in this very difficult and long-drawn-out dispute, the white collar workers have at no time been asked for their views or given a chance to express them? Having appointed a Court of Inquiry, why does she not stand by it instead of abdicating her responsibilities to those white collar workers?

Mrs. Castle: That is a fine piece of rhetoric, but it shows that the right hon. Gentleman was neither listening to what I said in my previous reply nor seriously weighing up my position. As I explained, I have statutory powers, which are limited. They are powers of conciliation and not of arbitration in recognition of disputes. During the whole course of this attempt to reach an agreed settlement I have been acting in a conciliation and not an arbitration rôle. The right hon Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no powers to impose a solution, even if recommended by a Court of Inquiry.

Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the T.U.C. General Council, which includes non-manual workers, was unanimously in favour of the manual workers in this matter, and that her statement is to be welcomed in the steel industry?

Mrs. Castle: It is an important fact that the General Council of the T.U.C. made its recommendation unanimously.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Why did the right hon. Lady set up such a high-powered Court of Inquiry if she was not going to accept its recommendations, when considering this appalling inter-union shambles? Will she at least tell the British Steel Corporation to bear in mind that while the "two" have only a limited membership in the industry, in Scotland they organise more than half the white collar workers, and are, therefore, entitled to recognition.

Mrs. Castle: Hon. Members opposite must realise that the appointment of a Court of Inquiry in no way puts the Government in a position to enforce its recommendations on the parties concerned. That is the position, and we had better face it, because otherwise all our discussions of industrial relations become completely confused. Courts of Inquiry are frequently set up by my Department in an attempt to get an agreed and peaceful solution. There have been other cases where the parties have refused to recognise the findings of the Court of Inquiry. This is by no means the first time.
As for giving advice to the British Steel Corporation, I want to make it perfectly clear that my rôle was a conciliation rôle. I have no statutory duty or rights as regards recommending recognition. This is a management responsibility of the B.S.C., and it is not for me to give it advice.

Mr. Tomney: Would it not have been better if my right hon. Friend had informed the House, when she set up the Court of Inquiry, that she had no powers of decision when a recommendation was made on the competition between unions? The recommendation is a matter of great concern to them. Will she look at the matter from now on from the point of view that it would have been better if the Court of Inquiry had not been set up?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot help it if the House does not closely follow the proceedings when they are put in front of it. The terms of reference for the Court of Inquiry were to examine the dispute. This was common form for such Courts of Inquiry. They have been set up frequently in the past, and the House has always been aware that the Government have no powers to impose the findings on the parties concerned.
The purpose of the Court of Inquiry was to try to find a settlement of what then was an industrial dispute: it was not set up to arbitrate on a recognition issue.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Since the right hon. Lady has told the House that the door is still ajar, and since her record shows that when she speaks of conciliation she does not mean peace at any

price, will she remind the Steel Corporation that to refuse reputable unions the right to recruit new members would be to deny any semblance of this remaining a free country?

Mrs. Castle: I am sure that the Steel Corporation has all relevant considerations in mind and will now be attempting to take a very difficult decision, which it has to take as a responsibility of management.

Mr. Heffer: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that in this complicated situation it is much wiser for the House of Commons to allow the General Council of the Trades Union Congress to use its authority to try to sort out an inter-union problem which can be exacerbated by statements made in this House by hon. Members who know absolutely nothing about it?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we want the T.U.C.—I certainly do—to develop a rôle here which will enable these inter-union disputes to be settled within the trade union movement itself, but I also want them to be settled peaceably. It was with that aim in mind that I referred the matter to the T.U.C. for its help. I suggest now that in this difficult situation we do not say things which exacerbate this situation, but recognise that the Steel Corporation has ahead of it a very difficult job of management, and that we should give it all backing.

Sir J. Rodgers: Am I right in supposing from an earlier reply that the right hon. Lady proposes to introduce legislation—or does she not propose to introduce legislation—to bring such a dispute within the ambit of her powers?

Mrs. Castle: If the hon. Gentleman will read the White Paper "In Place of Strife", he will find suggested there a procedure for the settlement of inter-union disputes, but the starting point of that procedure is, and in my view should be, reference to the T.U.C, in the hope that the T.U.C., as I said, will be able to settle these inter-union disputes peaceably within the confines of the trade union movement. But the White Paper also suggests statutory powers if T.U.C. efforts fail.

Mr. Anderson: Accepting that my right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility in this matter, and that, perhaps, the past intervention was misplaced, can she say whether the B.S.C. should consider it desirable, in tackling the problem, that there should be as few unions as possible in the industry?

Mrs. Castle: I do not think that it is for me to pronounce upon which unions, and how many unions, are recognised by the Steel Corporation. It is a statutory obligation, and my intervention has only been at the point where industrial dispute has arisen. I have a duty in this situation to try to conciliate and to prevent damage to the country's industry, and that has been my sole object.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Brooks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to my supplementary question to Question No. 41, I was advised by my hon. Friend that the Minister would later be making a statement on the content of my Question. My supplementary was, therefore, never answered.
I simply ask your guidance for the protection of hon. Members. If we are to have supplementary questions not answered, and the Member has no opportunity thereafter to put the point, it is an abuse of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very fair point. The hon. Member may put his supplementary question now.

Mr. Brooks: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the report of the Court of Inquiry was presented to Parliament and not to the Government; and that it does no service to Parliament to ask us to shut up every time we seek to comment on something which is of great importance to the future not only of the trade union movement, but of the country?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while many of us recognise that her task is one of conciliation, this will not come about by ducking the basic questions of principle which are argued in this particular matter?

Mrs. Castle: Far from the House having been asked to shut up, I thought that it had been in very full cry indeed for the past quarter of an hour. I can only say to my hon. Friend that the Steel Corporation will have the recommendations of the Pearson Committee in mind, just as it will have in mind the recommendations of the T.U.C., when trying to settle this issue. I can only repeat that the recognition issue is not for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary.

ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS

3.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
During a conversation which General de Gaulle had with Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris on 4th February, General de Gaulle outlined his ideas for the future organisation of Europe. He said that he would welcome talks between Britain and France and that he would like Her Majesty's Government to suggest that such talks should take place.
On 6th February Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris gave a copy of the record which he had made of this conversation to a member of General de Gaulle's staff. He was told on 8th February by the French Foreign Minister that General de Gaulle had seen the account and that there was nothing in it with which he disagreed.
Her Majesty's Ambassador told the French Government on 12th February that we were prepared to have discussions with them. I have today reiterated that readiness in a communication to the French Foreign Minister.
But General de Gaulle made clear to our Ambassador that he wanted to see a Europe completely independent of the United States, which would result in the disappearance of N.A.T.O. as we know it; and that he would like to see the European Communities changed into a looser form of free trade area with


arrangements by each country to exchange agricultural produce, and a small inner council of a European political association consisting of France, Britain, Germany and Italy.
This view on N.A.T.O. runs counter to the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government.
As to any changes in the European Communities, this is clearly a matter which affects all the members of those Communities and those countries which wish to join them. Her Majesty's Government's policy is to seek membership of the Communities. If the French Government believe that there is another and better way to achieve European unity, they will have to convince not only us but the other countries concerned.
Since these ideas affect the vital interests of other European countries who are our allies, a proposal for talks of this kind should not and could not remain a secret between Britain and France. We felt it right to tell our other allies in Western European Union what was proposed. These are major problems which cannot be settled between Britain and France alone.
We therefore made it clear in our reply to the French Government that we rejected their views on N.A.T.O. and maintained our position on entry into the European Economic Community. It was on these understandings that we were prepared to have discussions with them provided that our partners were fully in the picture.
The first public versions of this conversation appeared in the press in Paris, in Figaro and France-Soir, on Friday morning. We therefore corrected these accounts.
I deeply regret the differences which persist between France and her European allies. We are ready at any time to talk to the French Government, provided that they understand where we stand on the essentials of security and European unity. But none of us can accept a position in which France tries to put a veto on all progress in Europe. And none of us can accept that issues of this magnitude, affecting the future of our allies, can be settled without them.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the Foreign Secretary will be glad that he had this opportunity to make this

statement this afternoon, because, as everyone knows, there has been a lot of trouble over the weekend and it has not finished yet. May I therefore ask him some questions, questions of fact which were not quite covered by his statement, as that is necessary for a fair judgment of these events?
First, was there or was there not an understanding with the French Government that the talks between the British Ambassador and the French President should be confidential to each Government?
The second question is: what was shown to either Government? Was it the Ambassador's record of the conversation, or was it a version edited, of course, by the Foreign Office and approved by the Foreign Secretary? If, as seems probable, the document disclosed just another incursion into the future of N.A.T.O. and Europe which many of us have heard many times from the General, what was the reason for the urgent and precipitate action that was taken? Could there not have been better timing?
Finally, if there was something new and important in this document and in the General's ideas, was it not possible to pursue these matters by much more carefully planned diplomatic moves involving the British, French and Allied Governments in due course, when something of substance to discuss actually arose?

Mr. Stewart: On the first point, it was, of course, understood between the French Government and ourselves that these conversations were confidential from the public at large, but we never entered into, nor would we have thought it right to enter into, any undertaking to conceal from our allies and partners in Europe—to whom we have recently pledged ourselves in Luxembourg to consult about matters of concern—to conceal these things from them, whose interests were so vitally concerned. What was conveyed to them was not the Ambassador's full record of the conversation, but it was in no sense misleading or a distortion——

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Says you !

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has a habit of making allegations in the House for which he knows he has


no support at all in the facts. What I have said is, in fact, what occurred.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) suggested—I hope I report him correctly—that substantially there was nothing very new in what was proposed and could we not, therefore, have handled this less precipitately? It is true that General de Gaulle's remarks reflected some views which he had expressed before, but the preference for the disappearance of the European Communities, the mention of the inner political council and the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government should propose talks on this basis, was new. I know that it has been suggested elsewhere that there was nothing new. At the same time, it has been suggested that it was somehow a breach of confidence to discuss it. Of course, those two propositions are not mutually compatible. Part of it was familiar, but the parts which I have just mentioned were at the very least a new and importantly new emphasis.
As to what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as precipitate action, he will remember that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was at this period in conversation with Dr. Kiesinger in Germany. I think that it would have been entirely improper to have allowed those conversations with Dr. Kiesinger to conclude without Dr. Kiesinger being made aware of what had happened.

Sir G. de Freitas: In view of what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, will he continue to try to use W.E.U. for multilateral political discussions, since it is obviously in the present climate most undesirable that there should be discussions between any two members of W.E.U. which concern the others? Will he say whether, in view of the newspaper attacks in France on our Ambassador, he supports him in what he did?

Mr. Stewart: I know that there have been attacks in France on the competence, skill and even the candour of our Ambassador. I want to make perfectly clear that there is no support whatever for those criticisms and that Her Majesty's Government are fully satisfied with the way in which he handled this matter.
As to Western European Union, it is certainly our view that the revised Brussels Treaty, which governs Western European Union, should mean what it says; that one of the purposes of that organisation is the increasing integration of Europe. That means steady concentration on matters of foreign policy by all the members of Western European Union. That is what we have sought to achieve. The fact that France has been absent from some of those discussions is her decision alone and it is regretted by every other member of the organisation.

Mr. Sandys: I understand that the French Government have delivered a formal protest today. Could the Foreign Secretary say precisely what that protest is about? Is it that they are complaining that the British Government reported this conversation to other European Governments, or that they have given confidential information to the Press? Will the Foreign Secretary also say whether the W.E.U. meeting scheduled for next Wednesday is going ahead?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot answer the second question off hand. The substance of the Note, which has only very recently been received, is an objection to our informing other Governments of this matter.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that millions of people on the Continent and in this country are delighted that he is now at last explaining to the General in courteous but firm tones that he is not the emperor of Europe? Will my right hon. Friend please continue his excellent constructive policy in W.E.U. and elsewhere as opposed to the General's arid nihilism and offer to Europe a way forward instead of a way backward?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I believe that what we are trying to do in Western European Union is the right policy both for this country and Europe while we are still unable to enter the European Economic Community.
As to our relations with France and the form in which our differences are expressed, I think that it must be clear to everyone that there are serious differences of policy between our two Governments which no amount of skill or patience could gloss over, nor would it be


right to pretend that those differences do not exist when they do. But I shall endeavour so to conduct affairs that the differences between us are no more than are warranted by the sheer facts of the situation and are not unnecessarily exacerbated.
I repeat that I have reiterated to the French Foreign Minister our willingness to enter into talks with them.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that in view of the grave damage which could be caused to our national interests by the disclosure of inaccurate reports emanating from France of what happened on 4th February, the Government had no alternative but to take their allies fully into their confidence on the basis that one does not make new friends by selling old ones?
Taking his last remarks, would the Foreign Secretary agree that the lesson of the attitude of the past few weeks, which has been comparable to our own bloody-mindedness in the 'fifties, is that those who want to get on with reunification of Europe must do so and leave old men or middle-aged men to become converted to a more enlightened view?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged. The right hon. Gentleman will not want me to pursue the second part of his question.
The first part was related to W.E.U. I say again that we must go ahead on these lines. While we are unable to enter the E.E.C. it is important that that Community should not be regarded as the only possible focus in Europe in which there can be any discussion about anything. That is the importance of using W.E.U. for this purpose and with this we shall resolutely persist.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise the essential distinction between the defence of Europe against possible aggression—namely, military security—and the British application to enter the Common Market? These are two distinct issues. Is he further aware that many of us are delighted that the veil of secrecy has been lifted about our entry into the Common Market?
There has been far too much whispering going on and too much secret

diplomacy, with neither the House of Commons nor the public being informed of what has been going on.
Where do we go from here? Are we still going on with this farce of applying for membership when we know that there are insuperable obstacles—personal, political, economic and otherwise—to prevent that happening?

Mr. Stewart: It is, of course, true that the defence of Europe and our arrangements in N.A.T.O., on the one hand, and this country's application to join the E.E.C., on the other, are two distinct issues. They are obviously related, but they are distinct. It is possible for people to agree on one to disagree on the other. I do not think that I have ever said anything to suggest to the contrary.
But these conversations concerned both matters and we had to make clear, first of all, that we could not sympathise with any proposals that involved the weakening of N.A.T.O. and that, secondly, if the French Government were proposing some very considerable changes in the whole nature of the Economic Communities, whatever one might think about them they were clearly ideas which should be discussed by all those who were concerned.
I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion that we have concealed what the Government's position is on this matter. We have made it plain over and over again that we persist in our application to join the Communities and that, in the meanwhile, we seek European cooperation in whatever other forms are possible with whoever will work with us to that end. I do not believe that this is farcical. If my right hon. Friend doubts that, I ask him to pay attention to the overwhelming view among the public of all the other countries which are members of the E.E.C.

Mr. Turton: Did the Prime Minister warn President de Gaulle that he was going to disclose his proposals to the German Chancellor before he did so?

Mr. Stewart: I will tell the House exactly what happened. We sent instructions, of course, to all our ambassadors in the countries concerned and, in the case of Germany, since the Prime Minister was there, the information was conveyed


by him personally. The information to the French Government that we were doing this occurred after the communication had been made to Dr. Kiesinger but before it was made to some other Governments because, as hon. Members know, the exact hour when a communication is made depends partly upon when appointments can be made.
We handled the matter this way because it would not have been right to put ourselves in the position where we were in any sense appearing to ask permission to inform our allies of something they had a right to know.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend accept the reality of the situation—that there is no hope of useful association between Britain and Western Europe until the difficulties between the British and the French Governments have been resolved? Will he not, therefore, irrespective of the preliminary position of the French Government, continue to pursue, after a suitable cooling-off interval, bilateral discussions? Is there any reason why they should not be confidential provided that the other countries of the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. are aware that they are taking place?

Mr. Stewart: It would be difficult to think in terms of discussions affecting the future of the European Communities to which the members of those Communities were not a party. I would see great difficulties about a proposition of that kind. But, on the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would say that we have already made it clear very recently to the French Government that we are willing to enter into talks with them, subject to the conditions I mentioned in my original statement.
I realise very well—I think we all do—that the unity of Europe is bound up with agreement between Britain and France, but I do not believe that we can solve this problem by pretending that differences of view do not exist when, in fact, they do. While that remains, I think that our job is to state our view as patiently and steadily and, I hope, as courteously as we can.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Did the Government inform the United States as a member of N.A.T.O. and, if so, when?

Mr. Stewart: The United States was informed after we had informed our European allies, but, of course, before the matter became public.

Mr. Henig: Since other countries have bilateral talks—France and Germany, for example under the Franco-German Treaty—can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not the Government's intention that all the other West European countries should have a veto individually on the British Government having talks with the French Government? Are we now saying that Britain is prepared to have talks with the French Government on a bilateral basis with an unconditional agenda?

Mr. Stewart: Our objection was not to having talks, but we felt that there were two points we must make before they occurred. Since the suggestion for talks had been made at the same time as certain views had been expressed about N.A.T.O. and the future of Europe, we felt that we had to make it clear that we did not share these views, so that there should not be any misunderstanding afterwards.
Of course, if it were proposed that we should have bilateral talks with any Government on matters which were genuinely bilateral, there would be no need for wider consultation or information. But the point here was that the subject of the talks was something which affected the security and prosperity of our friends and allies.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Looking into the future, after all these leaks and blunders, since the Common Market is in agricultural chaos, and since President Nixon wants the Europeans to do more in their own defence, should not the ideas of the British Government and of the French President be urgently discussed?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman must make one thing clear first. He said, "leaks and blunders". He was not precise enough to say whether he was accusing Her Majesty's Government of either of these.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes.

Mr. Stewart: If so, I think that he might have stated more clearly what the nature of his criticism was.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose——

Mr. Stewart: One moment.
As to leaks, I make it clear that it was only when it was apparent that versions of what had happened were already appearing in French newspapers that we felt it necessary to correct those accounts. As to "blunders"—it would not have been right for us to have accepted the proposal for talks without the conditions which I have already mentioned.
In answer to the third part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can see that a case can be made on the lines suggested by President de Gaulle about the future of the Communities, but it would have been totally wrong for us to have started discussing that behind the backs of the other members of the Communities.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while these reports certainly appeared in the newspapers, these ideas, as he said, are not new and, indeed, have been discussed in this country——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a second argument on this point. I thought that there was some point of misunderstanding which the hon. Member wished to raise.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the right hon. Gentleman wants it, yes, I do accuse Her Majesty's Government of making a leak without giving fair warning to the French.

Mr. Stewart: I must say that is rather a feeble tail piece to the original rather general statement.
I must say again to the House that this proposal was made to us—a proposal which, if we had not promptly consulted our allies, might afterwards have been used with great disadvantage to our relations with them—at a time when my right hon. Friend was engaged in conversations with Germany. I do not believe that we ought to have acted in any other way than the way we did act.
As to the accusation about leaks, I repeat that not until inaccurate versions were appearing in the French papers did we put out the correct version. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that was a wrong thing to do, I do not think that

he will find that many people will agree with him.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend confirm or correct an explicit statement in yesterday's Observer that the Netherlands Government were informed of the Foreign Secretary's proposal two days before Dr. Kiesinger was informed? When was this information conveyed to Dr. Luns? Were the Netherlands Government informed of this before our E.F.T.A. partners?

Mr. Stewart: If the Netherlands Government were informed at that early date, it was certainly not by us. If the report is true, it was certainly not by us and I cannot tell the hon. Member from what source they could have obtained such information if, indeed, they did obtain it.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a fairly short debate in the immediate future on the conduct of the Foreign Secretary in these matters? Is he aware that if he is not prepared to discuss these proposals with the French Government, the House would like to discuss them here?

Mr. Stewart: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If there ever is a debate on these matters I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will produce, if he can, some evidence for the grossly offensive and untrue statement that he made earlier.

Mr. Anderson: Accepting that my right hon. Friend has acted with complete propriety in this matter, if the dispute is about the contents of the conversations, will he say whether or not it would be right for him to suggest to our French allies that they should publish their own version of the conversations?

Mr. Stewart: I do not really think that there will be any serious attempt to maintain the proposition that our Ambassador's account and the account that we gave to our allies was, in fact, incorrect.

Mr. Marten: Could the right hon. Gentleman say, when he first saw these agreed proposals which had been cleared by our Ambassador, whether he recognised that this was a very serious document and whether he got French agreement to it in writing? Secondly, can


he say why the Prime Minister was speaking to Dr. Kiesinger about this without President de Gaulle's agreement? We want to know why.

Mr. Stewart: The first part of that question, I think, was answered in my statement. This was not an agreement in writing. May I repeat the relevant part of my statement:
Her Majesty's Ambassador gave a copy of the record he had made of this conversation to a member of General de Gaulle's staff. He was told on 8th February by the French Foreign Minister that General de Gaulle had seen the account and that there was nothing in it with which he disagreed.
I should have thought that was good enough. I would have hoped so.
I think that I have already answered the second part of the hon. Member's question. We did not think that we ought to put ourselves in the position of asking—or that it should be suggested at all that it was necessary for us to ask—pennission to disclose something that was in our allies' interest.

Mr. Mackintosh: While accepting, as most of us do on this side of the House, the entire propriety of the actions of Her Majesty's Ambassador and of the Government in this matter, may I ask whether it is not the case that the French Foreign Minister has impugned the veracity of this statement of French aims as revealed by the British Government? In this case, is it not better that the authentic document should be published so that we can judge the candour of the French Government in making these proposals although pretending that they did not?

Mr. Stewart: Such a publication would be, as the House realises, an unusual step. As I said in answer to an earlier question, I do not believe that the proposition that our Ambassador made an incorrect record, or that the record we communicated to our allies was incorrect—though that proposition has been thrown out at one stage—would be seriously maintained. If it were seriously challenged, that would be another matter.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the delicacy of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the normal diplomatic procedure was not followed of ensuring the agreement of the French before this was disclosed to other countries?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think that we can say that, because proposals were made to us suggesting that we should propose talks on matters vitally affecting our allies' interests. We had to ask ourselves this question: if we had not promptly informed our allies, what version might have reached them and with what damaging effect on our relations with them?

Mr. John Mendelson: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that there will be widespread support in the country for the Government's firm rejection of the proposal to set up a new European military and foreign policy directorate which would involve inevitably the setting up of a third nuclear command to which the Government and the majority of this House are opposed and which would inevitably include Germany as a full partner in the nuclear directorate?
Will the Government, beyond the niceties of diplomacy, accept my firm assurance that there are many hon. Members who will fully support the Government if they go from there to the setting up of a European security conference, instead of having an exclusive alliance based only on Western Europe?

Mr. Stewart: We have already made it clear that this idea—to use the exact words—of an inner political council was not welcome to us, though not necessarily for the reason that my hon. Friend suggests. But, in any case, it was not welcome to us.
As to the possibility of a European security conference, if one looks, I fear, a long way into the future, one might see so fundamental a change in relations between East and West Europe that one might be able to think of alliances being no longer necessary. But that is a totally different question.
Until there is such a fundamental change—I fear that one cannot foresee it at all easily—it seems to me that the alliance which holds together Western Europe and the United States is something that no sensible person ought to want to weaken in any way.

Sir J. Rodgers: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that it is not true that the only choice for the British Government is to keep quiet about conversations between Her Majesty's Ambassador and the French President or else to reveal


them to our allies in Europe? Would he not agree that it was obligatory on him to inform the French of our intention to do so and, since he did not do so, the Prime Minister, in revealing it to Dr. Kiesinger, behaved outrageously?

Mr. Stewart: It looks to me as if the hon. Member is desperately casting round for some way to discredit the behaviour of his own Government. I do not accept this. It is not open to any Government to come to another with proposals to talk with them on matters which could gravely affect the welfare of other countries and bind them in advance not to tell the other countries about it.

Mr. Winnick: Will not the Foreign Secretary agree that the French Government have engaged in some mischief-making at our expense, and will not he also agree that, if the French Government stopped their anti-British policy, there would be a lot to be said for looking seriously at the suggestion of a free trade zone in Western Europe if the French Government meant it seriously, which seems to be very doubtful?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I do not want to use words like "mischief-making". I have tried to avoid making speculations about anyone's motives and to concentrate on the fact that there were solid aspects of policy which were the basis of our unfortunate disagreement with the French Government. In so far as it is a disagreement, we must try to keep it a disagreement on real things and not based on accusations, on false motives and the deliberate desire to make mischief.
In reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I said that a number of people have suggested changes in the form of the European Economic Community, and there have been many speculations as to the best form of European economic and political collaboration. We were not saying that there could never be any thought or discussion at all on these matters. We were insisting, however, that it must be together with the others concerned.
Most of the countries in the Euopean Economic Community regard it as an extremely important institution; it is, after all, something solid that exists, by comparison

with more vaguely suggested possibilities. Quite rightly, they would not want to see something solid and real, which is important to them, jeopardised unless they knew a great deal more about what was suggested in exchange.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Has the Foreign Secretary realised that one of the most extraordinary things about his statement this afternoon has been the omission of any reference to the fact that President Nixon is now touring Europe? Will the Foreign Secretary say whether the visit of the President to Europe was known as being likely to happen before the first contact between General de Gaulle and the British Ambassador in Paris? If not, at what stage was it known that the President was likely to be coming to Europe, and what steps did the Government then take in the light of that?

Mr. Stewart: I should have to check my memory to be certain that I was answering accurately, but to the best of my recollection it would have been known when the first conversation was held that the President intended to visit Europe. I must check that, and if I am wrong I will apologise in advance. But it seems to me that, whether that visit was about to occur or not, we had no choice, in our own interests and in good faith with our allies, to act otherwise than we did.
It has been commented that it is to be regretted that at the time of President Nixon's visit the disagreements that there are in Europe should be so plainly spelt out. I understand that feeling, but we ought to notice that the disagreements, the difficulties over policy, were already there. The President, at the end of his visit, will want to know exactly what the European position is, and not to go away with either an over-pessimistic view or with an impression that serious difficulties do not exist when, in fact, they do.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our membership of E.F.T.A. still represents our strongest foothold in Europe and that, as he himself said, there are more roads towards European unity than membership of E.E.C.? Will he now consider the feasibility of withdrawing our application for membership of E.E.C. and exploring other roads and other methods towards European unity?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I do not think that that would be practicable or sensible. One will never get anywhere in an approach to Euroipe if the moment one finds a difficulty in one place on switches off that and gives up hope. Moreover, we must notice, as I suggested earlier, that the E.E.C. is there as a solid fact, that its members attach great importance to it, and that to give the impression that this could be casually traded for some ideas which have not yet been at all thought out would not encourage confidence in us.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would it not be well to take this opportunity, in order to reduce the area of disagreement with France and to assist generally, to indicate that, while Britain could not have any part in the suggestion involving the dissolution or diminution of N.A.T.O., the other suggestion for a revised and less rigidly supra-national structure for the Community would be much more in accord with British need and tradition?

Mr. Stewart: The farthest I can go towards answering that is to ask the right hon. and learned Member to look at the section of my statement where I drew a very definite distinction between our attitude to General de Gaulle's ideas about N.A.T.O. and our attitude to this other proposal.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend continue to discourage the escalation of Anglo-French recriminations, bearing in mind that the only beneficiaries are the enemies of the West?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I repeat, we made it clear in our first reply to the French Government that, while we had these important reservations, we were willing to enter into talks with them, and we have repeated that. I repeat that, while it is no good glossing over differences of view, we must always endeavour to do this in a manner that does not add unnecessarily to the difficulties between us.

Mr. Tapsell: Would it not have safeguarded our future relations with our other allies, without at the same time exacerbating those with France, if our reply had been that we found the General's proposals unacceptable as a basis for discussion for the two particular

reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given, while not breaching the General's confidence without his prior consent?

Mr. Stewart: I remind the hon. Member of what I said earlier. We had to bear in mind, having in mind a previous occasion, what the situation might have been if knowledge of this suggestion had reached our allies from sources other than ourselves.

Mr. John Hynd: Does not this show the dangers of a continually divided Western Europe, and does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the only solution to this situation getting worse is the development of a wider Europe with a genuine, integrated, political authority and a genuine European Parliament?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is carrying us some distance ahead. I believe in the broadest sense that the unity of Western Europe is important, is a goal that we should seek, and that the wider goal of better understanding between East and West will itself be promoted if Western Europe can speak with a more united voice.

Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, for one, accept his version of the events of the last few days and congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their attitude to what I am afraid I can only regard as the latest of many attempts by the French President to do as much damage to his N.A.T.O. allies as he can?
Has not the time long since come when the Western European allies must co-ordinate their defence and foreign policies even if, for the time being it must be without France?

Mr. Stewart: We are endeavouring to seek harmonisation of foreign policy through W.E.U. consultations. As I say, we would very much wish that France would take part in that, but we do not feel that its absence could nullify conversations.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about defence, the view which France has taken about N.A.T.O. has for some time obliged the other European countries, members of the alliance, to go on without France, again to our regret.

Sir E. Fletcher: Would my right hon. Friend say whether, in the conversations between our Ambassador and General de Gaulle, it was ever suggested by the General that we should keep the conversations secret from our allies?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that any requirement of that kind was made. I want to be as careful as I can about this. In terms, that requirement was not made. It may have been, and I think that it probably was, the view of the General that we could keep it to ourselves—indeed, that we should keep it to ourselves—but, for the reasons I have explained to the House, I do not believe that it would have been either right or prudent for us to have done so.

Mr. Peel: Since the latest crisis hangs together somewhat with that of Luxembourg previously, and in view of the German reactions which appear to be coming out as a result of that, can the right hon. Gentleman say what the possibilities now are and what the reactions of the other Five are to further meetings of the Council of W.E.U. in future and when they might take place?

Mr. Stewart: I will be in a better position to answer that a little later. This matter is still under discussion among the members of W.E.U.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the meeting of the Assembly of W.E.U. last week there was almost overwhelming majority support for the view that the British initiative should be pursued? Will my right hon. Friend therefore take encouragement from that and pursue the initiative at W.E.U. and at any other suitable organisations in Europe?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I have noticed what happened there and I have been greatly encouraged by it.

Mrs. Knight: Can the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about precisely when the American Government were informed? Is it a fact that they were not informed until Friday, after versions had been appearing in the French newspapers?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I answered previously that it was before the matter became public, but shortly after our European allies were informed.

Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend speaks of "our European allies" I am sure that he means it in a much broader context than those in the Common Market. If so, is it not about time that we sought a much more broader concept of a united Europe? Leading from that, would he agree that we should initiate a conference of all European Powers, East and West, to try to get some sense into a world which is going crazy and which might plunge into wars over silly little issues such as that which we have discussed today?

Mr. Stewart: I have been using the term "our European allies" in the context of referring to those who are our allies both in N.A.T.O. and as members of the W.E.U. It has been made clear to the House that we, of course, have other allies in Europe who are not members of W.E.U. I share my hon. Friend's desire to see a general reconciliation throughout Europe, East and West. One of the reasons we were making progress in this sphere was the existence of N.A.T.O.; and at the Reykjavik conference, where proposals were made for mutual force reductions, I had hoped that we were on the way. Unhappily, the invasion of Czechoslovakia has set that back. Although it has set it back, I believe that this is a search for reconciliation between East and West which we want to resume and which we will never resume with success if the West is divided.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
General de Gaulle's latest proposals to Her Majesty's Government, the reactions of Her Majesty's Government and the resulting state of Anglo-French relations".
I should apologise to you at the outset, Mr. Speaker, for my inability to give you notice of my intention to seek leave to move the Adjournment.
I submit that anyone who has read the newspapers over the weekend and who has listened to the Foreign Secretary's statement today must recognise


that this matter is most certainly definite. Secondly, since the defence of the West and N.A.T.O. are at stake as well as the future unity of Europe, there can be no doubt of the public importance of this matter. Thirdly, I submit that because of President Nixon's forthcoming inaugural visit to this country, the House of Commons should urgently have an immediate opportunity of debating this matter fully.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
General de Gaulle's latest proposals to Her Majesty's Government, the reactions of Her Majesty's Government and the resulting state of Anglo-French relations".
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of Public Business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours. This is as provided for under the terms of the revised Standing Order No. 9.
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

LAW AND ORDER

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move
That this House, noting the growing public anxiety about the maintenance of law and order, deplores the increasing and dangerous distortions which result from the increasing tendency to present the problems of lawlessness in political rather than social terms.
It is not long since I returned from my only visit to the United States. Among many other things, I was impressed by the enormous dominance which the issue we are about to debate has in that country, not only as a political issue but as a social theme. I was impressed in a somewhat academic, I might say almost detached way, because I suffered from the firm conviction that things were very different back home. I am now beginning to realise, or at any rate suspect, that that view was hopelessly complacent.
I am becoming unpleasantly aware that law and order is a subject which is becoming more and more a matter for political controversy in Britain. I do not particularly look forward to the next General Election. I suspect that attempts will be made in certain quarters to capitalise not only on the crime issue, the narrow issue of attacks on persons and property and the growth of organised crime—evidence of which can be found in the newspapers this evening—but on that welter of emotions and prejudices which result from the challenge which many feel is now being made to the established norms, to what they think to be the comfortable, settled order of things.
There are a number of issues—immigration, hostility to welfare, the continuing conviction that prosperity is threatened by a horde of work-shy, lazy layabouts who are living in luxurious ease at the taxpayers' expense—together with drugs, demonstrators who demonstrate, protesters who protest and students who talk of revolution—every one of which is a potential theme to be exploited at the electoral hustings, and I fear that every one will be. I fear that as these anxieties increase, an atmosphere will be created in which a rational search for effective policies will become almost impossible.
I take only one very brief example in this field. I do it with some nervousness. It is only five or six years ago that I was an active office bearer in student politics, yet I realise that it might as well be 40 or 50 years ago, so quickly has the generation gap opened. One thing, however, of which I am fairly clear in my own mind is that the great mass of students have very little sympathy for the ideological peculiarities of the militant minority. I believe that to the average undergraduate at British universities Marcuse is still merely a name and that M. Debré's views on revolution remain largely unread, although they are neatly packaged for bourgeois consumption by Penguin books.
What I am also clear about is that, if there is a line-up against student opinion, if there a general censorious note is struck, the whole of the student body will be united behind the minority interest: the minority will rapidly be converted into a majority.
I deeply regret the talk about "academic thugs", however it may be justified in a few, and I suspect very few, individual cases, because it colours the whole debate about the problems of the universities; just as I regret the fact that as I well know there are still many on the staffs of universities who look upon students as mere encumbrances who must be tolerated in order to justify State finance for pet research projects. It is these attitudes which drive students into extreme positions and complicate and exacerbate the position.
Law and order will be a continuing theme for the next election, and the call for law and order may well degenerate into attacks on the legitimate right to dissent, a legitimate right which must be preserved in a society in which elections occur only occasionally and where single issues of immense importance are inevitably swamped in the general campaign.
I mention these wider issues only briefly. I regret that it has to be so brief, but circumstances force me to take a somewhat narrower field in the remainder of my comments. I want to deal, first, with the speech made last Tuesday by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to the Greater London Council Women's Advisory

Conservative Committee. It has made, or it certainly attempted to make, crime and the combating of crime a central political issue, and I deeply regret that.
I have studied the official version of the speech, issued by the Conservative Central Office. It makes sad reading. I often think that I have far more respect for the right hon. Gentleman than many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have, but I am afraid he went a long way towards forfeiting that respect on this occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks on capital punishment were deplorably weak and can only encourage extremists. Much worse than that was the general note which he sounded. He told us, for example, that crime is twice as rampant in the 1960s as it was in the 1950s. This may well be true, but to pin the attack on the Government or upon a particular political partly must be irresponsible and highly unfortunate. If he says that it is due to malicious incompetence, in terms of police recruitment, on the part of the Government Front Bench, and also goes on to say that it results from the Labour Administation; failure to live up to the economic expectations of the people, it is just nonsense.
The right hon. Gentleman is in considerable difficulties if he is talking about a period from the early 1950s, if only because Labour came to power only in 1964 and I am not aware that the crime rate started to rise only then. We did not invent public anxiety in 1964.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a depressing one because it invited right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench to start playing the numbers game, to start throwing out charge and countercharge about the number of policemen, the proportional increase in violence and other statistics—all those indigestible facts and figures which every politician can produce if circumstances demand it, but which add absolutely nothing to the enlightenment of the public or to the general worth of any debate on the subject.
I read with very little enthusiam the speech made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in reply though I recognise that it was inevitably called for because of the tone that the Leader of the Opposition had struck.

Captain Walter Elliot: Surely the number of policemen and the statistic; of crime are most important. That is what we must base ourselves upon.

Mr. Dewar: They are important, but not when they become lost in a plethora of differing bases, when competing statistics are manipulated for party advantage, not to produce a true picture of the situation, but merely to get a passing party advantage and to allow the more effective exploitation of public anxiety.
I think that this is something of which we in Scotland are very well aware, because in 1966 we had the embarrassment of watching the General Election being fought, particularly in the West of Scotland, primarily—almost solely—on the issue of law and order, the crime rate, and the return of capital punishment. It was a thoroughly unpleasant experience and one which I do not want to see repeated.
I can only think that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition will have encouraged his own backwoodsmen to mount the kind of pressure on this issue that unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition has shown himself quite unable to withstand on such issues as immigration in the past.
In case the House should imagine that I exaggerate, I want to take only one example of something that I read in the Scottish Press this weekend. I take this example only because I think that it sets the tone of the kind of speech that we shall hear a lot of. An adopted Conservative candidate is reported in my Aberdeen evening paper last Friday as having said this to his annual general meeting:
Socialists regard murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves as people merely misunderstood and left free to prey on Society, but Conservatives believe that all who commit such crimes must be made to pay the penalty and that we must have a country where old people and children can walk again without fear.
The sentiments are possibly grotesque. They are easy to laugh at, but I fear that they will become typical items in a large number of papers throughout the length and breadth of Britain over the next few months and that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will be largely responsible for that.
Not for the first time, and possibly not for the last, I have a great deal of sympathy for the views expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), if the Observer is correct in reporting him as saying that the crime rise is a worldwide phenomenon and
far too grave to bring down into the cockpit of party politics.
I think that my right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right. I only wish that he could convert, if that is the right word, his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
Once this issue is handed over to party propaganda, over-simplification is inevitable. When the parties start outbidding each other, all sorts of possible useful but small reforms are suddenly elevated into panaceas, into quick and easy solutions, because this is necessary in terms of electoral appeal. Powers of search, birching, capital punishment, what the right hon. Gentleman talked about—the restoration of confidence—all these things suddenly become the vital key and the particular remedy which is peddled soon fills the horizon.
All those who cannot agree entirely on the point somehow are branded as soft on crime and do-gooders; and before they know where they are they find that they are being accused of condoning the rise in the crime rate.
I believe—I think that many on these benches believe—that there must be salutary sentences for hardened criminals who appear before the courts, but I do not think that we should follow on from that by saying that that is all that needs to be done, that that is the solution to the problem, and so let it become a substitute for an examination of the deeper and underlying social causes of crime. Far too many hon. Members opposite, and indeed some of my hon. Friends are apt to do Just that.
The second reason why I shall make a somewhat narrow speech on the crime issue as distinct from a more general speech on the subject of law and order is events in Glasgow over the last few days. All Scottish Members, if not all Members of the House, will be aware of the death of Mr. Thomas Bourne, a Glasgow bus conductor, after a particularly tragic and pointless stabbing last week. It was all too typical—perhaps that is


too alarmist a term; let me say tha it was an example of the kind of vicious, tragic and, above all, stupid violence which has been occurring over a long period of time sporadically in that city. I know that the House will have much sympathy for the family and friends so sadly bereaved.
I want to ask two questions: what can we do in the short term to try to control this violence; and, what is very important in a general debate of this type, why did it occur? In the short term it is important to realise that Glasgow is not unique in having this kind of problem—we sometimes have that delusion. We sometimes take almost an inverted pride in ensuring that there is the maximum publicity for what happens in Glasgow in terms of crime. That said, however, there is a problem for bus conductors and bus drivers who have the right to demand protection and an assurance that their system of work will be reasonably safe.
I hope that the authorities will consider the possibility of walkie-talkie radio links, as the busmen have asked. I recognise that it will be extremely expensive, but, presumably, if timetables were worked out properly, only a small proportion of the buses concerned would need to be so equipped—those used mostly at the weekend, which is when this kind of outbreak almost exclusively occurs, and on certain routes.
In Nottingham, there has been a problem of hooliganism for a long time. There radio-controlled cars go some way to ensuring that help can be brought to a trouble spot quickly. Also installed is what the director of transport has described to me as a hooligan alarm—that is, an amplified hooter system which may be controlled from the driver's cabin and heard over a wide area if the staff of the bus is of the opinion that trouble is likely, or if there is a threat of disorder.
I appreciate that some people will say that such a system would be ineffective, and that the public would lie low and not help, but I have been assured by Nottingham officials that their experience is that the public co-operates, recognises the distinctive note of such an alarm and telephones the police so that aid can be brought quickly. I do not say that it is

the complete answer, but it would be well worth considering. It would also be well worth remembering that Nottingham has had to do this kind of thing long before Glasgow, which shows that this is a national and not the specifically local problem it is sometimes thought to be.
There are wider problems of control. Obviously, we must worry about the level of detection and we must consider our methods of detention. I do not have time to go into any of these at length, but it is rather strange that in all the mass of the per capita financial comparisons between England and Scotland which almost universally reflect the Government's very proper concern for the state of the Scottish economy, an exception is police services on which more is spent in England. I have been told that the expenditure per head in England is £5 2s. 5d., while the figure for Scotland is £4 15s. 8d. I do not necessarily try to draw any wide lesson from that, but it may be something worth remembering.
Why do we get this kind of situation? We have first to ask whether the situation in Glasgow, for example, is worse than that in other cities. There is always a trend for a reputation built up over years to continue after the justification for it has disappeared. With all the figures for violent crime open to interpretation, it is difficult to discover exactly the basis of truth for the reputation which Glasgow has acquired for being a violent city.
There may be all sorts of other trends which, in recent years, have done something to inflate the figures. It is said, and there may be some justice in this, that when a man goes out for violence now he carries a knife, whereas before he would have carried a razor, and that, while a razor might maim or disfigure, it will not kill, and that to some this change is reflected in the increasing number of fatalities. It may be—and I put this forward only as one small factor—that many of the violent crimes which are reported in the newspapers are the result of wife assault and the awareness of wives' rights has led to women complaining more when they are abused in the home, and this, too, would also be reflected in the crime figures.
There is still an enormous amount of work to be done in discovering what the situation is. I would be the first to


accept that a very large number of the causes of juvenile violence, of the gang phenomena, will be with us for a very long time in terms of an unfortunate school tradition, in terms of schools where the whole education environment is appalling, where pupils are dropped to the bottom of the system and left in what is known as "the daft class", which is often no more than the staging post to the approved school or borstal institution. There is, too, bad housing, and, clearly, it will not be possible to solve such problems in any final sense for a very long time, regardless of what party is in power.
One of the things which strikes me when we consider the causes of juvenile violence is how little we know about them. It is a remarkable commentary on our lack of knowledge that if one wants to read a book on juvenile violence and the construction of the juvenile gang one has to refer to the work of Yablonsky, which deals with gang warfare in New York's East Side 10 years ago. Some work is now being done, but we are hopelessly behind and still working in terms of hunch and intuition and not knowledge.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is a major disgrace that we had to wait until the 1950s for our first chair of criminology and that there are still very few such posts in English and Scottish universities?

Mr. Dewar: I agree. It is self-evident that there must be diagnosis before cure, and that the disease must be identified and described before it can be diagnosed. For far too long we have been failing to get down to this basic work.
I appreciate that there is at least a research and development branch in the Home Office on which we spend the princely sum of £24,000 a year—and in 1966–67 it was only one-fifth of that—with 45 men on the establishment. I appreciate that the universities are also being used, but still in a fragmented and piecemeal way, and we still tend to fasten on theories which are sometimes no more than pure speculation.
I should like to give a few examples of the kind of question which I should like to be answered. We have heard much about bad housing. It has always been said that if we could cure the housing problem and get rid of the slumghettoes

and put people into a decent environment, we would start to conquer its violent crime syndrome, but, as we all know, the places in the West of Scotland about which we are now worrying are Easterhouse and Drumchapel, which are vast new housing schemes. We have to ask ourselves why this should be.
But even on that I enter a caveat. because the gangs which exist—the Toi, the Tongs, the Fleet and the other big gangs aped even as to name in the schemes—still have as their territories the old and battered parts of the towns, the areas which have still not been redeveloped. These gangs are the models and the problem is not even as clear cut as it may have appeared during the last few moments.
Many of these big gangs are operating in areas where amenities may be shabby, but where they certainly abound. That seems to suggest that more amenities in housing schemes would help, but that is not to say necessarily that they would be a kind of absolute solution. Clearly, if a housing scheme the size of the City of Perth is built merely as a residential area without cinemas, swimming pools or libraries, and only the most occasional scatter of shops and, above all, without pubs, one is inviting trouble. I am not yet convinced that local authorities and Government Departments have learned that lesson.
It may make me unpopular in some quarters to say that I think that the licensing laws in Scotland have contributed to the climate in which these gangs operate rather more than other factors which are more often mentioned. Certainly, if one goes into the average Glasgow pub after 9 o'clock one will find men drinking desperately to get their quota of alcohol before 10 o'clock. That can be compared with the much more leisured atmosphere in areas where drinking laws are looser and hours are longer. Even if I were in the temperance lobby, I would argue that increasing the hours would not necessarily increase drunkenness and might encourage a slightly more civilised atmosphere in the public houses.
I recognise, as we all do, that there will always be gangs. I myself went to a good, middle-class education establishment, for which, I suppose, my parents spent quite a bit of money and I certainly


was a member of a gang. If my memory serves me rightly, we did several things which at least technically constituted juvenile crime. I can, therefore, hardly complain about the existence of gangs in other areas.
What I want to know, however, is why the gangs turn to violence. The trouble, however, in my view, is not in the big gang fights. My information is that one does not get massive casualties there. It is in the sporadic outbursts when small groups come face to face. That raises another problem. If a man is stabbed in an affray in Glasgow, it is always put down to gang violence. The person involved may say that it is gang violence, as a justification, in a sense to romanticise his activities.
I am not convinced that this is a significent factor, and I give it as another example to show how incomplete is our information. Then there is the problem about which we must all have speculated, the structure of the gangs. There was the old idea that the gang was integrated, was a highly-organised homogeneous structure, an opinion held by many people of experience. I doubt it. This is something about which we must know if we are to try to deal with the problem.
I should mention an extremely interesting article that will be published in the Scottish Educational Study, by Mr. James Patrick, of which I have been allowed a sight. This is an account of first-hand experience of working in a Glasgow gang and it confirms very largely the American theories of Yablonsky and others that the gang is small, very loosely structured with an "in" group, a kind of hard core, and a great shifting, drifting periphery.
The hard core are not born leaders, not men who, with education, would be captains of industry, but the psychopaths, "the mentals", irresponsible people who spark off the violence—the touch-paper which sets off the whole mob. If that is a correct analysis, and I suspect that it is, quite clearly what we must try to decide is what is the best way of separating the periphery from the hard core. How do we detach these people?
I would mention one of the good pieces of work that has come from research, initiated, I think, by the Government. I refer to Pearl Jephcott's "Time of One's

Own", published by the Department of Social & Economic Research at Glasgow University. The point is made that these troublemakers, the "in" group, can be identified extremely early in their career, long before real trouble starts and the gang organises. It is very sad that, given that fact, nothing is done to deal with these people, to give them the kind of help and support that might do something to break down the danger as it develops and keep them away from the worst of their future activities. I know that a study group was set up in 1968 by the Standing Consultative Council on Youth and Community Services to consider her findings. I would be interested to know whether there has been any action or decision in principle taken upon this work.
Why have we not yet tried the detached street worker? There is a whole volume of casework about the effectiveness of this kind of project from America. It seems that a controlled, limited experiment would be particularly useful. There is, too, the question of police juvenile liaison which has been working in five or six Scottish burghs for some time—in Greenock since 1956. A recent appraisal by Mr. John Mack, of Glasgow University, has suggested that it has been useful over a period of time; that it has done a great deal to save, at least the peripheral boy, from drifting into juvenile crime. It is astonishing that in the City of Glasgow, about which we worry more than any other, there is no police juvenile liaison scheme. I wonder why?
The article I mentioned by James Patrick makes the interesting point that the hard psychopaths who start trouble, very often, in the author's experience, use youth clubs three or maybe four times a week, which suggests that we cannot assume that involvement in a youth club is some sort of immunisation against gang warfare in the community. It is still quite clear that imaginative youth work must play a greater and more real contribution.
I am glad that the Government have given 60 per cent. to the Easterhouse Youth Club Centre and that they are to spend about £12,000 on one in Drum-chapel. I recognise that since 1962 just short of £750,000 has been ploughed into 282 youth club projects by the Scottish


Education Department. We are not, however, going about it systematically enough, not getting the kind of follow-up information we need.
I also suspect, maybe a little cynically, that in some of these youth clubs, there may be far too great a reliance upon the therapeutic effects of ping-pong for the Government to be really getting value for their money. I am aware that this debate is somewhat truncated by previous events in the House and I do not want to keep too many other hon. Members out.
One of my last points concerns approved schools. Again, I confine my remarks to Scotland, if only because I suspect that in England there is a different situation. To my surprise I find in England there is only about a 75 per cent. occupancy in approved schools. In 1967, the number of places available were actually reduced. My own impression of approved schools in Scotland, although I pay an enormous tribute to the work staff, is that they vary tremendously in quality and in terms of facilities and buildings. I have been at approved schools and have been appalled by the complete and utter lack of privacy of training, by the fact that there is no real attempt made to follow up the boy after he leaves the school.
I believe that we get an arbitrary collection of people thrown together with potentially disastrous results. In a Written Answer I was told, in March, 1968, that in Scottish approved schools 47 people were committed purely for truancy and seven for sexual offences. I suspect that those figures very greatly squeeze the categories of such people actually in approved schools. It is possible, walking round some of these schools as I have done, to wonder, as one leaves the school, how any boy spending up to 16 months, on average, in such a place can possibly come out better than he went in. It seems that he may actually come out worse than he was before being committed. That is a tragic thing for any one to say. There are only 217 places in Scotland for maladjusted children. If one goes, as I have done, and looks at the free-expression art produced by boys at approved schools, one gets this frightening, jagged, simplified mass of colour—repetitive paintings of a kind which have become familiar to us from the colour supplements, dealing with split personalities and disturbed minds.
We must be much more selective about what we put into approved schools if we are to ensure that they do not merely tempt the marginal cases on the paths from which we are trying to win them. I am unhappy at the idea that the boy sent away from the schools at weekends or at the end of his term, goes back to the gang, to the environment in which he originally went wrong, without any real effort being made to help him.
There are a very large number of things I would have liked to have talked about, such as the lack of a prison aftercare service in Scotland. Although I realise that the rise in the number of probation officers to 316 from 262 in December 1965, may not be enough to allow them to operate a scheme effectively. The staff ratio in prisons in England is I to 2·32 and in Scotland 1 to 3·13. This is the kind of thing which worries me and is worth examination.
I am worried, too, about the continuation of short sentences in Scottish prisons. There are over 1,000 people serving sentences of under six months. In the last 10 years the total prison population has escalated from under 2,000 to 3,111. I am concerned about the parole system, where 773 cases have been considered, but only 49 people released. That is an area where more flexibility and not more caution could be the order of the day. These matters may be dealt with by other speakers—I hope so.
I apologise to the House if my speech has been parochial. To some extent it has been necessary. I have described problems, and I have tried to comment on them. Inevitably, I have not suggested solutions, because I do not think that we are in a position to do that. Politicians must face up to the realities of crime. They must also face up to the realities of public opinion. If a prison is to be sited in a special area, if it is a matter of finding a job for someone who has been through approved schools or the penal system, if there occurs an occasional, almost inevitable incident when someone is released and commits a further crime, then the public reaction is a warning of the dangers of doing anything to exacerbate the real hostility towards the proper, flexible approach to the problem.
I hope that all politicians will be prepared to co-operate in looking for such solutions, and will not be prepared, for purely electoral advantage, to exploit the very understandable fears that abound.

5.10 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) has done a service by using his good fortune in the ballot to draw attention to the basic and important question of the maintenance of law and order.
There are, I suppose, two main aspects of this problem which are causing concern. First, there is the increase in violence connected with what I call, for want of a better term, "conventional crime". In this I include the tendency to regard gunmanship, gangsterism and armed robbery, if not as part of the accepted order of things, then as part of the expected and possibly inevitable order of things. The second aspect is the new and disturbing phenomenon of violence in the streets and public places masquerading as a form of political expression, with its related evils of the denial of free speech and strong-arm action in universities and such-like places.
In the interests of brevity, I shall deal mainly with the second matter, reversing the proportion devoted to it by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, but not because I do not consider that the first aspect is not of great, growing and genuine concern. Of course, it is. The pace of crime grows with a sustained and sorry acceleration. In the first nine months of last year there was an increase of 7 per cent. in crimes involving violence to the person and an increase of 8 per cent. in breaking and entering. This is an increase upon an increase. In London the amount of crime is estimated as being twice as much in the 1960s as it was in the 1950s, and in some provincial cities it is four times as much or more.
If that pattern continues, it is obvious that the prospects are gloomy indeed, and it will continue unless corrective action is taken. We can assess the probabilities of corrective action when we consider that the police force is undermanned by more than 20,000 and that it is 20 per cent. below establishment, with four men trying to do the work of five. Here we find

a link between the old violence and the new, between the conventional criminal violence and the pseudo-political violence. The more that police forces, inadequate anyway, are diverted to deal with pseudo-political violence, plainly the fewer there are to deal with conventional crime. It goes even further than that, because we must assess the effect on recruitment of the apparently complacent assumption that policemen should be expected to engage as a matter of course in violent conflict with organised thugs for which they are ill equipped.
I turn to the second aspect with which I wish primarily to deal. I want to make three propositions in respect of the pseudo-political manifestations. First. these violent manifestations, these so-called demonstrations, are in breach of the existing criminal law.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Nonsense !

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I shall expound on that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman will then say whether he agrees with me or not.
Secondly, the Government prefer complacent acquiescence to corrective action, and they have failed both in the enforcement of the existing law and in the necessary review and revision of it. Thirdly, this failure cannot be justified on grounds of democratic principle, of constitutional propriety, of international obligation, or indeed at all. It amounts to a basic failure in what is and must be a primary duty of government—the maintenance of law and order.
I said that I would make good the first proposition, and I will do so in the brief time at my disposal. These so-called demonstrations are, in my view, illegal at common law apart from the statutory offences to which they may give rise under, for example, the Public Order Acts of 1936 and 1963, the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 the Prevention of Crimes Act, and the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.
They are illegal at common law because they constitute the offences both of unlawful assembly and of riot. They clearly come within the criteria of unlawful assemblies as set out in Archbold, and in Smith and Hogan, and other authoritative textbooks. They come within the second


of the two categories defined at page 1294 of the 36th edition of Archbold, which reads:
An unlawful assembly at common law is an assembly of three or more persons with intent to carry out any common purpose, unlawful or lawful, in such a manner as to endanger the public peace or to give firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood reasonable grounds to apprehend a breach of the peace in consequence of it.
It is crystal clear that these demonstrations, these manifestations of violence, fall within that definition. It is equally clear that they constitute the graver offence of riot. The five necessary ingredients to constitute a riot are defined in the leading case of Field v. The Metropolitan Police District Receiver, 1907, 2 Kings Bench, and they are set out in the Judgment of the then Mr. Justice Philli-more at page 860: First, number of persons, three at least. Second, common purpose. Third, execution or inception of the common purpose. Fourth, an intent to help one another by force if necessary against any person who may oppose them in the execution of their common purpose. Fifth, force or violence displayed in such a manner as to alarm at least one person of reasonable firmness and courage. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South laughs. Which of those criteria does he suggest is not met by these demonstrations? I will give way to him at once if he wishes to tell us. He does not wish. I thought that perhaps he would not.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I am interested in the definition, but I wonder how the right hon. and learned Gentleman would differentiate between the phenomenon he is describing and a crowd at a football match.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I am interested to learn how the right hon. and learned Gentleman would differentiate between the definition he has read out and the conduct of the police on these occasions.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I will answer the serious question. The fourth criterion is an intent to help one another by force if necessary against any person who may oppose them in the execution of their common purpose. That is not an ingredient at a football match—or it should not be. The fifth criterion is

"force or violence displayed…". That is not, or should not be, an ingredient. I do not say that football matches may not constitute riots, but these ingredients are not normally present in them. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State may be in some difficulty owing to the inevitable absence from the debate of the Scottish Law Officers. That is due to the will of the electorate, with which we cannot quarrel.

Mr. Dewar: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: No. The hon.
Gentleman made a very long speech, and I am trying to make a short speech in the interests of other hon. Members.
We come to the clear and inescapable conclusion that activities of this sort are an illegal violation of the existing criminal law.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an estimate of the number of occasions in a year when the ingredients mentioned in the authority all occur in the United Kingdom? Does he suggest that there should be proceedings for riot in each of those cases?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman wants the information, I will try to get it for him. I will table Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. However, judging from the lack of success which I have had in eliciting information on these matters, he may well be disappointed.
These are offences at common law and, therefore, it follows that those who concert them may be guilty of the offence of conspiracy.
I come, then, to my second proposition. What is the Government's record and attitude in face of these illegal activities? It is negative, complacent, inept, and it is a breach of the basic duty of the Government to maintain order and enforce the law. I, like some other right hon. and hon. Members, have been trying for more than 12 months to get the Government to enforce more effectively the powers that they have and to strengthen the powers if they consider it necessary. In both respects, I am sorry


to say, their reaction has been consistently disappointing and unconstructive.
Time forbids detail, but may I give one example? After the original violence in Grosvenor Square in March last year, I drew the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that powers had existed for more than 300 years to protect Parliament against such violent demon-stations, and I suggested that it would be appropriate to enact similar legislation for the protection of embassies. That would have been a simple and salutary operation, but the Secretary of State refused. After the riots on 27th October, I renewed the suggestion, again without success. The sequel is known to all of us. Come January of this year, and the Foreign Office had to make a humiliating apology and pay compensation to the South African Government for damage to their embassy.
There is one other aspect. It is obviously a matter of public concern to know how much is involved in the diversion of effort and resources to deal with riots of this sort and what payment from public funds is involved. In spite of many Parliamentary Questions trying to get this information about the matters on 27th October last, it has so far been impossible because a sort of conspiracy of silence seems to exist among Ministers on this matter. I was able to elicit the information that 20 Departments took measures incurring expenditure, but what the measures were and how much they cost remain veiled in secrecy.
On 27th November last, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
I regret this information is not readily available and to obtain it would involve a disproportionate amount of time and money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 151.]
On 28th January last, asked about an estimate, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I have no doubt that it would require considerable expenditure of time and money, disproportionate to the value of the information."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 275.]
That is a matter of opinion. If it leads to the saving of such expenditure in future, it may be very well worth while.
In dealing with my Questions as to the measures taken, the PaymasterGeneral

has fallen back on the last defence of frightened, inept or authoritarian Ministers and has pleaded the public interest for the non-disclosure of this information. I say that the public interest in this matter is clear, and it is this. The country is entitled to know the cost of the Government's failure to do their duty in regard to these matters and to expect that the Government will do their duty in future.
I can deal shortly with my third proposition. The Government's failure cannot be justified on grounds of democratic principle or the like. Of course the right of freedom of expression is fundamental in a democracy. Of course we have to try to strike a fair balance between the right of the citizen to protest, on the one hand, and the duty of the State to maintain public order and preserve property, which involves the rights of other citizens, on the other hand. But the violent manifestations which the Government seem to be condoning go far beyond freedom of expression or constitutional protest. They are a form of legalised violence which has neither place nor purpose in a democratic society which possesses universal suffrage, free speech, a free Press and the whole apparatus of peaceful expression of opinion. These manifestations fall clearly within the specific exceptions to the general right of free assembly prescribed in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We have increasing conventional crime together with Government acquiescence in the emergence and growth of new forms of violence, themselves a breach of the criminal law, and with it an undermanned and disillusioned police force. All this the Government appear to accept. The Secretary of State used to be considered a friend of the police. Perhaps it is because of this that, honourable and scrupulous man as we all know him to be, he now feels that he should lean over backwards so as not to seem to favour old friends. But he is really carrying it too far. They might well say to him,
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love.
Why did you kick me downstairs?
This is a melancholy story. The Government have failed in their basic duty and are obstinately persisting in their error in this matter. That being so, the


country can only conclude that corrective action for the real maintenance of law and order must await a new and better Government.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) on his luck in the Ballot and the very able way in which he moved the terms of his Motion. I should like to restrict my comments to one part of it, namely, the reference to
distortions which result from the increasing tendency to present the problems of lawlessness in political rather than social terms.
I am particularly interested in the reference to political terms and in this I am happy to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).
In moving his Motion, my hon. Friend indicted certain Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and Conservative candidates, particularly on the West Coast of Scotland. I do not wish to follow him in that. I wish to indict the Press, which, I think, has a considerable responsibility to bear in this matter.
The distortion with which I wish to deal is the distortion practised by the Press in the build-up which it produced prior to the last Vietnam demonstration, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East has referred. I refer in particular to certain stories which appeared during the early part of September. I have with me, for example, the Evening News of 6th September, which had a headline "Targets for revolution" and said:
Take-over targets for militant student groups in London's ' October revolution ' include the central police communications centre at Denmark Hill, the Defence Ministry, the B.B.C. and the Stock Exchange.
Mr. James Reid's imagination went on to suggest that
Molotov cocktails, home-made bombs and even guns may be used in major mass demonstrations in London, according to alarming reports reaching Scotland Yard.
Perhaps one can expect that kind of story from the Evening News, but certainly one expects somewhat more responsible treatment from newspapers like The Times. I was, therefore, surprised to find on the previous day a story by Clive Borrell and Brian Cashinella in equally sensational terms:

A small army of militant extremists plan to seize control of certainly highly sensitive installations and buildings in central London next month, while 6,000 Metropolitan policemen are busy controlling an estimated crowd of 100,000 anti-Vietnam war demonstrators on a peaceful march. This startling plot has been uncovered by a special squad of detectives formed to track down extremists, who are understood to be manufacturing ' Molotov cocktail ' bombs and amassing a small arsenal of weapons. They plan to use these against police and property in an attempt to dislocate communications and law and order.
These sensational stories were followed up in other newspapers. I will not weary the House by reading lengthy extracts but some reference should be made to them. The Yorkshire Post on 15th October said:
Scotland Yard's special branch have been investigating… a plot to disrupt London's underground railway system during the anti-Vietnam war demonstration due to take place on October 27.
The Daily Telegraph suggested that it was all being plotted by the I.R.A.:
A message purporting to come from a man described as No. 2 Commandant of the I.R.A. was telephoned to the Press Association yesterday.
and so on.
I will not bore the House with other equally sensational stories which appeared in the newspapers. What disturbs me is that these journalists were obviously primed, James Reid in particular. Granada television produced a broadcast on the press coverage, and Mr. Reid was approached. He said categorically that the information had been given to him by Scotland Yard. Messrs. Borrell and Cashinella, however, when approached by journalists on the Sunday Times, refused to give any information about the source of their story. But, from the story, one can see references to authorities in Scotland Yard.
Quite properly the programme producer and script writer approached Scotland Yard and the accounts were denied:
Scotland Yard officially denied last night that they had received reports that Molotov cocktails, home-made bombs and firearms might be used in the mass demonstration. They also denied that a special undercover team were searching for an arms cache, for the people responsible for buying arms and for those who financed them.
I find it mightily curious that on two days in early September almost identical


stories should appear in two papers, particularly when one was The Times, which we have always supposed to be a responsible paper, which would not print sensational copy of this type unless it had been given the tip-off by persons in authority.
On the basis of the statements that I have just read out, I and other hon. Members could be forced to infer that Messrs. Borrell and Cashinella are liars. They said in their story that they had been given this information by Scotland Yard and that a small squad of detectives had been formed to track down the source of manufacture of Molotov cocktails and other such weapons. Yet, when Scotland Yard was approached it denied that any such special squad had been set up or that there was any proposal to manufacture Molotov cocktails and other such weapons.
I suspect—one can only conjecture about this matter—that someone in Scotland Yard—this is what I find very disturbing—wished to hedge his bets. Whatever happened at the demonstration, the police would be in the clear. If they built up, as they did or as was done for them by the Press and television, highly sensational prior news reporting of this incident, whether it went off peacefully or violently the police would come out of it very well.
Therefore, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not have some responsibility in this matter. As he knows, the demonstration went off very peacefully and the Press had to eat a lot of words. The Times in particular did so. I will quote what it said on the Monday following in a moment. I know that the Press is irresponsible, but certain things might have been hinted or suggested to it which raised the climate. I suspect—I should be very glad for my hon. Friend's comments—that the source of these highly sensational stories which appeared in the newspapers was Scotland Yard.
Most hon. Members will agree that the Press did its best to lay on a major confrontation between the police and the demonstrators in terms of the news coverage. It would have been far better if that kind of comment did not appear. I therefore ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that any information given to the Press in future will be based on hard

evidence. There was none in this case. There was no hard-core group of 400 saboteurs which some of the newspapers suggested. There was no manufacture of Molotov cocktails. There was a very limited amount of violence. Arms were not manufactured. There were no revolvers, which the News of the World suggested were to be brought in from France. None of this took place and the Press was made to appear foolish on the morrow.
It is, therefore, hardly surprising that The Times should say, rather blandly in view of its prior build-up: "It was not a revolution." Certainly it was not. Most of us who took part in that demonstration and who know anything about the people involved in these anti-Vietnam war organisations knew very well that it would not be a revolution. The Times said:
It was not a revolution. Nor, in spite of the scare stories, the rumour-mongering and the drawn-out war of nerves about October 27, was it ever intended to be one.
This, from The Times, which had played a major part in building up the hysteria. It is hardly surprising that, following that story and the event, people should seriously question the rôle of newspapers in building up this climate of tension.
I put it to my right hon. Friend that it would be proper for him and the Home Office to have conversations with newspaper editors about any prior publicity which they give to the build-up of demonstrations. I see that another anti-Vietnam demonstration is planned and that, in Friday night's Evening News, the sensational coverage and speculation was being repeated. This is very regrettable. It builds up the kind of hysteria to which my hon. Friend has referred. I suspect—I hope that he will be able to deny it—that it has emanated from Scotland Yard.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: We can be very grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) for raising a topic of such importance and great urgency, without accepting all his doctrine on the relationship between crime and politics. When he was speaking about the association of housing and environment with crime, I think that all of us were very nearly in agreement with everything he said.
But when the hon. Member came to crime and politics, he went a little wider


of the mark. Law and order is a responsibility of Government and of the Home Secretary in particular. The Opposition did not hesitate to remind the House of that during the tenure of the last Conservative Home Secretary. The Leader of the Opposition has a duty to do in these matters, and so far as I can see, from reading his last speech, he has in no way exceeded it.
To put a serious and non-political point, public disquiet is not allayed in any way when politicians pretend that there is nothing to be argued about. On the contrary, as one issue which I will not raise now shows—most hon. Members will know which one I mean—it may have the reverse effect, the differences between us are, of course, sometimes exaggerated but it is very much better that they should be than that they should be concealed.
One such difference, which is a legitimate one, is this Government's decision to limit police recruiting last year and the consequences which have flown from it. We attacked the decision at the time, and we attack the consequences now. In retrospect, and for a number of reasons, this decision can now be seen to have been a serious blunder, and no amount of juggling with statistics can alter that. The Home Office has just provided some figures—they are clearly set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT of last Friday—showing clearly the consequences of that decision. In 1967 the battle to enlist enough recruits to offset wastage was being won comfortably with a surplus of 4,000. By 1968 the battle was being lost, with a net gain of barely over 100. Those are the figures, and yet during those two years, as we all know, the load on the police, in many branches, has greatly increased. For part of that we in this House are responsible. As the police themselves pointed out not long ago, no fewer than 10 major Acts of Parliament have gone through in the last two years which have increased their work of enforcement.
There are one or two other reasons which I will put briefly, and I respond direct to the point which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South made. The Government's responsibility as opposed to that of the sociologists is to identify the principal dangers at any particular

time to law and order and then to seek the right remedies and provide the right means. That is a job for politicians and not for sociologists. The hon. Gentleman indicated where some of his anxieties lie. I will very briefly indicate four spheres in which my anxieties lie. In reflecting on them, I refreshed my memory of views expressed about light months ago by Professor Radzinowicz, addressing the police at Bramshill. This should please the hon. Gentleman, because Professor Radzinowicz, who has served two Governments, is not a politician but both a sociologist and a criminologist.
In the first sphere—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred to this—we have the enlarged problem posed by protests and demonstrations by minority groups seeking results by direct action. I make only one point about this. It seems to me that the danger here lies principally not in what they themselves do but in the fears to which they give rise and the reprisals which they may induce. Anyone who has read the Kerner and Walker reports on riots in America will realise that the worst of the riots sprang from exaggerated fears leading to action by authority, which exacerbated the situation. That is the principal area in which I have fear in this regard. For this, of course, the media share a considerable part of the blame. Without being smug, we may turn to what we sought to do last year about the two major demonstrations for which the Home Secretary became responsible—to pacify, to give outlets to expression, to take precautions but to avoid undue repression and violent reaction. I would only add that that calls for ample manpower resources, which in the first demonstration we barely were able to field; in the second case we were able to field them and that had a major effect on the result.
Secondly, I would say a word about the professional criminal, who has come off rather lightly in this debate so far—the professional criminals organised in gangs or syndicates, ingenious, ruthless, in business on the largest and most profitable scale. This has been growing, and, in my view, we are a long way from being on top of it. At this point of time it is perhaps well not to particularise. I will only say that we shall not, as we may hope, end this threat by


rounding up particular gangs; in industrial societies there will always be a vacuum which others will be eager to fill. My impression is that the case load on senior detectives and the police involved is very heavy indeed. It has never been so onerous.
Thirdly, we come to the abnormal offender, perhaps the most difficult field of all, and very potent in its effect on the public mind. It can impose the most difficult and unsatisfactory tasks on the police. I would make only two points about it without going into details. We ought to look very carefully again at the workings of part of the Mental Health Act. I am thinking of the system of safeguards after an offender has been caught.
Secondly, I remain convinced that we must take more seriously the subject of stimulus. I do not want to appear to make the mass media the whipping boy, but really we should make a more serious effort to probe the connection between the diet of violence and a minority with abnormal minds. I stress the need for more information. It is five or six years since a Conservative Home Secretary set up an inquiry into violence on the television. The I.T.A., I believe, subscribed £250,000 for that inquiry. What are the public results? The Home Secretary tells me that the final report is about to be issued. Are we any closer to the answers we seek? If not, why not? We really must make a renewed attempt to tackle this scientifically and effectively.
The fourth feature to which I would draw attention is the growth of robbery. Unlike the generality of offences in London in 1967—I make no comment on places in the hon. Gentleman's country, Scotland—this category did not fall; it increased disturbingly. In nearly 1,000 out of 2,000 cases in London weapons were used. In 165 instances firearms were used. I go very quickly over these figures. In London in 1950 there were 250 cases of robbery; in 1960, 750; in 1967, 2,000, an eightfold increase since 1950; and only 30 per cent. were cleared up, better than in 1966, but still alarmingly low. Look at the profits. In London alone about £2 million a year—tax-free; in the years from 1963 to 1967, £7 million of loot unrecovered. What we must note is that, unlike the general rate of crime increase, which has been checked, the rate of robbery is accelerating.
All this adds up to a new, formidable load on the police. It is a picture which abundantly justifies the strictures which we laid on the Home Secretary last year for the steps he took in curbing the police recruiting rate.
There are some other general reasons why this was seen by many people, not just the Opposition, to be a great mistake. At a difficult time for the police it was a blow to morale. It was unselective; it made no allowance for chronically undermanned forces in London, Glasgow, and the other big cities. It was shortsighted because the volume of crime, the volume of loot, is now something to be weighed in the national accounts. Finally, it struck at a force where perhaps there is less featherbedding, less wastage of manpower, than in almost any other institution or industry today.
I fully concede that in the time of this Government, the last five years or so, the police have been enabled to set an example by their actions to achieve more effective use of manpower, and for this credit goes not only to the Home Office and the working parties but to some of the police leaders and chief constables. They are doing two jobs. They are running their own forces, and they are also giving a lot of collective assistance and advice at the top, on strategy and other matters, and this is saving us a great deal of top brass staff which would otherwise have to be appointed.
For these reasons I conclude by insisting that the Home Secretary's action was wrong. It has been proved to be inept, and, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, it stands condemned.

5.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): It may be useful if I intervene now in order that the debate on this Private Member's Motion may continue and close on a private Member basis.
The terms of the Motion have been borne out to a very large extent by some of the contributions that we have heard in the debate this afternoon. It is an opportune Motion. I do not think any of us, when we first saw it on the Order Paper, expected that within a week the tone of some of the public speeches which have been made would have borne out the truth of the main point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen,


South (Mr. Dewar) was making. I personally, regret the speech by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) to a Conservative women's association. I regret that it should have injected that kind of political note, for while it is perfectly clear—[Interruption.]—I have read that speech and I was looking at it just now. I have read it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred, for example, to the recent figures of the rising crime rate. When we examine the recent figures we find that the rate recently has been declining, that the big increase was at an earlier period. The right hon. Member said:
The latest… figures… show that the number of indictable offences… are rising steeply…
Why did he refer to the latest figures in that way? Consider what happened when the Conservatives were in power. In 1960 the figures rose by 10 per cent.; 1961 by 8 per cent.; 1962 by 11 per cent.; 1963 by 9 per cent.; and in 1964 they rose by 9 per cent. The latest figures, for 1967, show a rise of about ½ per cent.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: That is going a long way back.

Mr. Buchan: I should not have bothered had not the Leader of the Opposition started this.

Mr. Hogg: rose——

Mr. Buchan: I will not give way. I have not finished yet.
It must be made clear, if politics are to come into this, that the original statement came from the Conservatives. I deplore this. I accept that the nature of our society will be reflected in, among other things, crime. Nevertheless, one should not try to draw from a short period the sort of conclusions which the Leader of the Opposition drew in his speech. A political attack has been made, and, before dealing with the more important questions of recruitment and so on, I must answer it.

Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister aware that he is not referring to the latest figures that are available? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Is he aware that figures for the first nine months of 1968 have been given to the House? Will he now apologise

for the extent to which, no doubt unwittingly, he has misled the House?

Mr. Buchan: I was referring to the figures covering the end part of the year. I agree that the figures for the first nine months show that to an extent for England and Wales the numbers have increased over the previous year—

Mr. Hogg: Ah !

Mr. Buchan: —but the fact remains that when we compare the latest figures with the figures at the time of Conservative rule we see that the rise has been smaller. If we consider 1966, a more comparable year with which to compare the figures for 1968, we see that the rise has been only half what it was at that time. This is not an important argument, and if the Leader of the Opposition had not started it I should not have been raising the matter.

Mr. Hogg: Why raise it, then?

Mr. Buchan: I am replying to what the Conservatives have said. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had not started this—as I explained, it is a largely irrelevant argument—the matter would not have been discussed. In any event, I treat the whole thing with utter contempt, particularly as a political gambit, because, in a way, it is worse than a crime in that it is a blunder. The Conservatives' figures were worse.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Since the Minister quoted from my right hon. Friend's speech, he may care to have the extract properly on the record. The Leader of the Opposition said:
The latest available figures for England and Wales show that the number of indictable offences, which at one time showed some sign of levelling out, is in fact rising steeply once again.
What was incorrect in that statement? The Minister has shown, on his own figures, that while the rise in crime was reduced to less than 1 per cent. in 1967, it has been rising by 6·7 per cent. in the first nine months of this year.

Mr. Buchan: I have been trying to make hon. Gentlemen opposite realise—just as I have been doing for Scottish hon. Members in the past year—that there is bound to be a fluctuation in the figures. As soon as there is a rise we find the Conservatives up on their hind


legs full of criticism. As soon as there is a fall, however, they are not so quick to compliment us. I have explained that this is a largely irrelevant argument which arose at a Conservative meeting when there was a responsive audience for this show of irresponsibility by the Leader of the Opposition, and I regret it.
I am not alone in regretting the right hon. Gentleman's handling of this matter. The Police Federation regrets it, too. We have heard how some hon. Gentlemen opposite are friends of the police. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) explained, as a friend of the police, he said, how we had produced disillusionment among the forces, and that we no longer had the same support. The Police Federation certainly deplores what the right hon. Member for Bexley said. The Federation has exclaimed:
We would be extremely worried if abolition or law and order as such were to be made an issue between the three parties. It is our experience that when these issues are placed in the political arena there is no great benefit to the individuals concerned, in this case the policemen.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite call themselves friends of the police, they should bear in mind that the policemen are rejecting their latest efforts.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that at a conference which he attended, at least for part of the time, the Police Federation in Scotland unanimously called for the restoration of capital punishment?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of that. At present I am drawing attention to the attitude of the Police Federation towards these matters generally, and this attitude is shared by the police north of the Border. The police do not want this problem, and especially the aspect of it dealing with law and order, put into the political cockpit in this way. That is why i have condemned the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South has raised this matter today. I agree that there is never a good time to discuss this subject because it is a problem in which none of us can win. No matter what the figures may be. any crime is reprehensible

and is to be deplored. I hope, therefore, that this business of quoting figures for and against, this "figure swopping", so to speak, will be stopped, because if we are to solve this problem we must explore every facet of it.
As I say, it is difficult to find a time to discuss this subject because usually when we think it is an opportune time something happens on our doorstep and we are faced with an issue which we must deplore. For example, in England there was the recent shooting of a policeman, and in Scotland a killing took place on a bus last week. There has been great tension as a result of it.
I listened with interest to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. He will not expect me to comment in great detail on the central case which he raised. However, I wish to express my sympathy for the family of the man, Mr. Bourne, who was killed in the course of his duty. In the past week I have spoken to the convenor of shop stewards at the garage in question. I have also spoken to the Chief Constable of Glasgow. Negotiations are taking place between the local authority and the union about the suggestions which have been made, and I accept that some other ideas—for example, the use of radio and other equipment—have been put forward this afternoon.
This brings me to the question of the rôle of the mass media. I do not wish to go into great detail about this. It is clear what happens when there is a competition in sensationalism. I agree that over-sensationalising something, particularly in advance of its happening—I have particularly in mind events like demonstrations—is to be deplored because it tends to bring about some of the effects that are being predicted.
We are all aware of the honey-like qualities of a television camera to young people. However, while there may be a small minority of youngsters who are more concerned with a punch up than a teach-in, the vast majority of young people participating in demonstrations have good motives. Most hon. Members would agree with much of the content of the matter about which some demonstrations are held; for example, these youngsters do not like war or authoritarian rule by government. However, we must pay attention to the stimulus which


the mass media engender, and I would rather we did that than leave it all to Scotland Yard. I hope that the hon. Member will not allow his suspicions of the police force to be over-developed in that way.
It is almost tedious to repeat that we all felt that the last big demonstration in Grosvenor Square was handled extremely well by the police, and this evoked a response from the demonstrators. That is interesting and important, and I hope that the demonstrators will learn from it. In my student days we used to take the line that the police were our fellow workers It might be useful if demonstrators kept that view in mind, and did not regard the police as "fuzz".

Mr. Hogg: But does not the hon. Gentleman intend to deny categorically the extraordinary charge made by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) that Scotland Yard had been responsible for the rumours about Molotov cocktails? It is the Minister's duty either to set up a Select Committee or to deny that charge categorically.

Mr. Buchan: Had I known that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to intervene on that level, my usual generosity in giving way would, for once not have been possible. I certainly intend to deal with specific points, but this matter had nothing to do with Scotland Yard. I am not responsible for the British Press. This was a bit of sensationalism, but in regard to matters under my control and at Scotland Yard, I completely repudiate the suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South explored some of the present problems in our vities. He is perhaps right in saying that a great deal of the present youth crime is not necessarily linked to particular gangs. It is rather difficult to estimate what proportion is linked, but his analysis may be right. I agree that it is a pity that public research into gang structure has so far only tended to come from writers like Thrasher and Yablonsky on the other side of the Atlantic. Some research work has been done in this country, but not sufficient.
My hon. Friend is probably right in saying that the complete gang set-ups in industrial c ties such as Glasgow are not

so highly structured as some of the more schematic sociologists tend to show. My own interpretation, which is not so far from his, is that there is a hard black core and a rather grey periphery drifting in and out of the gangs involved. I know that some of Jephcott's case work has been done on a voluntary level in the Gorbals, and I agree that it is useful work
My hon. Friend referred to the relation ship between police and youth in juvenile liaison schemes, and I have been very pleased to see some of the initiative being taken by local police forces in Scotland as in England and Wales, with the police becoming involved in youth activity. One knows of the development in the Raploch scheme in Stirling, and there are other examples.
One realises that it is not enough to provide ping-pong in order to solve some of the problems. We all used to think that once we abolished poverty we should have abolished crime, but we have been shown to be sadly wrong in that respect. I know of the research to which my hon. Friend refers when he speaks of there very often being a high correlation between youth clubs and delinquency, but the answer is not to reject the attempt to find the right kind of community involvement for these young people. As far as one can see, the results of the work done at Easterhouse have been promising and helpful, and I am sure that the work should continue.
I do not wish to refer to all the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East; but some of the definitions he used to make points on the problem of demonstrators were pretty nearly applicable to almost any pub brawl or football match. We have to maintain the right of asembly, the right to demonstrate, and the police in London have shown that this can be done while at the same time preserving the peace in effective terms, rather than taking a legalistic view of the situation, which might have caused even greater alarm.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Can the Minister, then, answer the following question? Irrespective of what other hypothetical assemblies come within the definition of an unlawful assembly and of riot, does he or does he not agree that these demonstrations were riots and unlawful assemblies within the meaning of the law?

Mr. Buchan: Again, the question is: why is it right to prosecute one and not the other? If both are to fall within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definition they are alike liable to prosecution all along the line. That is my only point in that connection.
There were certain ameliorating factors written into the restrictions on police recruitment in England and Wales, and hon. Members will be pleased to know that the planned increase of 1,200 men up to the end of March of this year is expected to be reached. For the next year there is a planned increase of the order of 2,000. We must get recruitment into perspective. In Scotland, we also adopted a restrictionist policy, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was, quite correctly, very forceful in objecting to it. There is, however, an ameliorating factor in that restriction also, and we are trying to guide recruitment to areas of greatest shortage. Nevertheless, it would be wrong for hon. Members continually to make a comparison on the basis of the forces as opposed to the establishment.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was much more realistic. He sought to relate the size of the existing police force to the new needs imposed on it. That is a good and valid point. I am not trying to push something under the carpet when I say that I do not think that the correct comparison is with establishment figures, but when we look at that side we see a very useful increase has taken place. I accept that it is the responsibility of government to deal with law and order in the sense of providing the sinews to cope with the problem.
In December, 1964, the establishment figure in England and Wales was 89,000, and it is now 108,000. We must not compare unlike with like. We find that over four years this Government have increased the number of police in England and Wales by about 10,000, and it is important to note that the actual police strength in England and Wales is now bigger than was the establishment under a Conservative Government. In Scotland, we have increased the force from 10,026 in December, 1964 to 10,308 in January, 1969. That is not enough, I agree, and we want more.
It is not only a question of numbers. The right hon. Member for Ashford

referred to the new responsibilities and duties in combating large-scale organised crime as being one of the new factors of our time. This position cannot just be answered by increased police forces. We also require new methods, and our record in this respect is extremely good.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: rose——

Mr. Buchan: I have given way a great deal, but I am kind-hearted.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He said that we must not compare establishment with strength, but he found it convenient to do so when quoting the 1964 figures. He should follow his own doctrine.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member completely misunderstood the point I am making. I was saying that the recruitment had gone up so much under this Government that in England and Wales we have more than the target figure which was the establishment figure in 1964. I still accept that the establishment figure is not a valid judgment of itself regarding overall shortage. If the hon. Member does not get that point, I am sorry. It seems perfectly clear to me.
The other aspect is new methods and expenditure on equipment for those new methods. Here our record has been good. I have been looking at the experiments in unit beat methods. The amount of capital expenditure has risen from £1,346,000 in 1964–65 to £2,462,000 for the coming year. That is a very substantial increase, almost double in four or five years. I am talking of Scotland. I have increased the number of personal radio sets from 400 in January, 1967, when I came to office, to 1,530 by the end of the last year. I have increased the number of vehicles between 1964 and 1968 from 965 to 1,208. We are spending money on equipment to cope with the new kind of problems posed to police forces. In England and Wales the expenditure on equipment has risen from £5,500,000 in a very good year for the Tories—1963—to £12 million at this time.
Instead of generalising and speculating on causes of crime, which I am prone to do at the drop of a hat, I have tried to deal with the points which have been raised. Sooner or later we come back to


the kind of problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. We have to see that the new society we live in creates its own problems, and that it is not sufficient, as we once thought, to create the right kind of housing and then the problems will be solved. We have solved the problems of civil engineering, but we are only beginning to grapple with the problems of social engineering. This in the last analysis must be the solution.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I certainly do not intend any personal discourtesy to the Under-Secretary, whom we are very glad to see here with his colleague from the Home Office, when I say that as this debate has progressed I have found it more and more difficult to excuse the absence of both Secretaries of State.
When the Home Secretary told me last week that he was proposing to absent himself I thought then he was justified, but then I did not know the kind of speech in which he was to indulge over the week-end. He cannot be here, so he says, but it seems absolutely inexcusable that, with this debate coming on, the Home Secretary should have made that kind of speech, not here, but before a captive audience.
Parliament is the great forum of the people. Parliament is the place where these questions should be thrashed out. I criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), when he made his speech about immigration, for not coming here to make it. It seems utterly inexcusable that one should indulge in this kind of shadow boxing in the country and not treat Parliament to one's opinions.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is it not inexcusable that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Home Secretary should be missing from this debate?

Mr. Hogg: I am spokesman on home affairs from the Opposition Front Bench, but the Home Secretary is responsible for law and order in speaking from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Home

Secretary did not publish any data that was not already well known and that he himself had no desire to hurl this matter into the cockpit of politics, but took it up only by way of rebuttal of the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition, which were completely unfounded?

Mr. Hogg: If the Home Secretary had really desired that this not be brought into what he called "the cockpit of politics" he should not have attempted to escalate the debate in the way he did in the country. If the Under-Secretary, whose loyalty to his chief does him nothing but credit, will contain himself I shall deal both with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and that by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
I do not intend by what I say to escalate; on the contrary. If one escalates foolishness one does not necessarily appear more sensible oneself. I shall, therefore, deal with the two speeches to which reference has been made in discussing the Motion which is before the House.
The Motion has two parts. It deals, first, with what is described as
the growing public anxiety about the main tenance of law and order".
I share that public anxiety to the full. What are the facts? The facts are that since 1945 indictable offences and all forms of crime have been growing steadily year by year over 25 years with only a short trough in the years between 1951 and 1954, a period for which I do not intend to take party advantage for reasons which will emerge in the course of my argument.
The latest figures available, I must tell the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, are not those he gave, but those for the first nine months of 1968 compared with the first nine months of 1967. In that period indictable offences grew by 6·7 per cent. Therefore, although the Home Secretary in the speech he made over the week-end, which I wish he had made here, said that the peak had been reached in 1960 to 1964, the peak of the wave, as he elegantly expressed it, had not been reached and he was misleading the country. It is not a wave, it is a tide, and there is no evidence at all that the peak has been reached yet.
The figures I have been referring to are an all-time high on top of an all-time high. This is what gives rise to public anxiety. When the Home Secretary attempted to play the numbers game which—I share the view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar)—is a singularly infructuous one, and referred to the figures for the Metropolitan Police district in 1967, it was a pity that he did not point out that robbery and attempt to rob in that period and in that locality had risen spectacularly by about 28 per cent.
These are the facts which give rise to growing public anxiety. I find it very difficult to excuse the Home Secretary for having glossed them over in the way I have described. The Under-Secretary suggested, as I anticipated, that the Home Secretary was provoked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I am bound to say to him that even had it been true—and I shall give my reasons for disagreeing with the Under-Secretary—I should have thought that it was a pretty poor response from a senior member of the Government. If he had seriously wished to de-escalate controversy, and take the matter out of party politics, I could conceive of no worse measure that he could have taken than the speech he made, which could only make my task in seeking to approach the question on an objective footing more difficult almost to the point of impossibility.
But I do not agree with the Under-Secretary's interjection. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made one party point, and that was the point about police recruitment. I have heard it made, and I have made it myself in the House. It seems to me to be a perfectly valid point, because in all the confusion about the causes of crime, the methods of penal treatment and police methods, one incontestable fact is that in the face of a growing tide of crime, to curb police recruitment at all must have a counter-productive effect.
I challenged that action of the Government when it was announced, but, what my right hon. Friend was saying—it is outside the terms of reference of this debate, but it seems to me to be perfectly within the ordinary proprieties of party conflict—was that the Home Secretary

only purported to justify his claim on the basis of the measures of economy. I have no doubt that in the recesses of the Cabinet Room he attacked it as strongly as we have done. He purported to justify that goal, however, only on the basis of economy. My right hon. Friend made the point that we on this side blamed the economic situation and the Government.
My right hon. Friend made two other points, neither of which was a party point.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is it not proper to look at the situation over the span of a few years and to remember that average recruitment during the administration of the party opposite was 1,300 per annum and that the average for the four years of Labour rule is 2,387 per annum? There is a vast difference between these figures.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman seems determined to bring this matter into the cockpit of party politics, but since he has raised the point, let me say this. It is quite clear that police recruitment in the year when a curb was imposed, partly as the result of actions by successive Governments, was raising the level of the force by about 4,000. That was in the 12 months prior to the curb. I was glad to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that he expected that the 1,200 to which the expected rise was curbed would be met by March. As, I think, only 207 was the net increase for 1968, that means that in the next three months the hon. Gentleman will have to raise recruitment by an extra 1,000 men. I hope that he succeeds.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who moved the Motion. It was inevitable that an Opposition who took seriously their responsibilities should object to the curbing of police recruitment at this time and in the context of the growing anxiety to which I have referred. It was a perfectly legitimate point to make and I see in it nothing improper or nothing which a member of the Opposition should not do within the ordinary proprieties of public debate.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went on, however, to make two other points, neither of which was a party point. I want to deal with them


both since they are relied upon as having provided the Home Secretary with provocation. The first was in relation to offences of fraud, which during the first nine months of 1968 increased by, I think, 15 per cent. My right hon. Friend said, and it is a point which I have made to the Government before, that there was an undesirably long period of time between the investigation of a fraud and the verdict.
To give one example of a case, the merits of which I cannot canvass because it still is, and will remain for a very long time, sub judice, the investigation was started by a Conservative Minister during the last period of Conservative government, when the President of the Board of Trade ordered the investigation. The case will not be heard probably until the end of this year. Those of my hon. and learned Friends who are members of the same profession as myself will know that this kind of delay is not unusual, at least in scale, although the particular case was probably longer than most.
This is not a party point. I know that the Government inherited from us the system which they are operating. I know that we inherited it from our predecessors. What my right hon. Friend said was that surely Parliament should consider whether the traditional methods of investigation in fraud were appropriate to the situation. I share his view that they are not. I deeply resent the theory that, by pointing that out, my right hon. Friend was in some way provoking the Home Secretary to make the kind of retort which he did.
The third thing which my right hon. Friend discussed was the five-year period in relation to the death penalty. He pointed out, perfectly correctly, that the five-year period, which was imposed by Parliament in 1965, would come to an end in 1970, in very little more than a year from now. He said, perfectly correctly, that Parliament would then have to make up its mind what to do about it.
I do not think that it is quite such an easy problem as most people seem to find it on one side or the other. From the point of view of what is called the restoration of the death penalty, I should have thought it quite likely that Parliament would find it impossible to go back to what I might call the Kilmuir compromise,

which had various theoretical objections to it and did not altogether justify itself in practice. I should also find it difficult to return to the common law, whose difficulties I will not elaborate at this moment.
If that is so, however, those who wish to restore the death penalty must be thinking now of the terms in which they would prescribe the crime which is to carry it. I do not believe that any fancy franchises, if I may call them that, will attract widespread support on either side of the House. On the other hand, those who wish to retain the abolition must face one very disagreeable fact. Quite apart from whether the death penalty is a deterrent, they must face the fact that under the present law there is a premium on killing.
Under any system of law, whatever system is introduced, one cannot convict anybody unless the criminal can be identified. If the criminal has embarked upon a course of conduct which will attract a sentence of imprisonment of seven years or upwards, he must—or some of them must—reflect upon the fact that no additional penalty, or only a marginally additional penalty, will stand against him if he eliminates what may be only one witness of his guilt.
Therefore, if a man rapes a little girl of seven, or robs a railway train, or burgles a house with a bad record behind him, and there is only one person who can tell that he saw that man there, or if a person is seeking to escape arrest and there is only one body between him and escape from the place of the crime, there is no additional penalty imposed at the moment.
I do not propose to pursue this matter further tonight. I suggest that people should consider before 1970 what other views they propose to take and should deal with the realities of the situation raised. I can see nothing improper at all in my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition having discussed this matter publicly in what I thought was relatively restrained language.

Mr. Brian Walden: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He has introduced this point to prove that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) had not attempted to play


politics. May I quote from the right hon. Gentleman's speech and then ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he has to say. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Then capital punishment was abolished. This will again be reviewed by Parliament next year, thanks to a Conservative Amendment for which I voted to Mr. Silverman's Bill to abolish the death penalty in 1965.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that is a fair way to put the issue? Is not it likely to mislead people?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that it misled anybody, though, if it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I opposed the Bill and I also was not particularly enamoured of the five years' experimental period.
That leads me to the only other point that I should like to make on this matter. I wish to reiterate what I have said again and again in this House, with all the solemnity that I can muster, that so far as I am concerned the imposition or otherwise or the death penalty will never be made a matter of party politics. It will not be a matter for the party Whips. It will not be made a matter of electoral promises. It is a matter for the individual conscience, to be arrived at by the House of Commons next year or the year after. There is no other proper way of handling the problem.
I turn to the second part of what the Motion says, and here I have a considerable amount of agreement with the mover. I think that it is apparent from the figures which I have quoted that we are here in the presence of a world-wide phenomenon, because the one point on which I agree with the Home Secretary in his speech is that this is a worldwide phenomenon, in which the figures in this country are not the worst, which has gone on for a generation.
Anyone who claims to know what is the cause of it is either a fool or a knave, or possibly both, and in the presence of that ignorance, to which I plead guilty myself, I think it ill-becomes the partisans in the parties on either side to play what has been called appropriately enough the numbers game and make selective quotations from particular years, trying to make the public believe that from year to year there is more than a marginal effect which any Government of

either complexion can have upon the crime figures. I am not at the moment dealing with the aspect of the matter which occupied my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker Smith).
On the contrary, my own feeling about this matter is and always will be that it is the business of Parliament, on both sides, to enlist public support behind the forces of law and order, and, in default of precise scientific knowledge which I believe to be wholly absent from this subject at the moment, to make what constructive suggestions they can make to remedy the situation in the knowledge that what it will do is at most second best.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South talked about social rather than political arguments; I forget the exact phrase he used. I want to raise a somewhat different matter. My feeling is that crime and criminal behaviour is not something that can be isolated from the whole pattern of personal behaviour and social activity. We know that probably not one in 15 of the minor thefts which take place is ever brought to court at all. In fact, law and law enforcement is only one aspect of what, at the risk of appearing a little unctuous, I shall refer to as the problem of morality. That is what politics is about. That is what social policy is about. That is what civilisation is about and ultimately, I suppose, that is what religion is about.
Suppose one found onself in a situation of complete darkness, one would not talk about attacking darkness. One would talk about turning on the light. When one finds oneself in a position where there is ignorance, one does not talk about attacking it. One talks about promoting knowledge. When one is faced with disease, one does not always talk about fighting disease. One talks about promoting healthy conditions. When talking about crime, one ought to think in terms of promoting areas wherein morality can be fostered; and when we are in the presence, as we are, of a running tide of increasing criminal figures, we want to ask ourselves more than ever whether the various qualities and social and personal attitudes we adopt are designed to promote morality.
The more I reflect upon the subject—and believe me, I have reflected upon it


over many years—the concept of morality to which law must bear not an exact but some kind of reflected relationship can be reduced to a single principle, namely, the respect which every individual human personality must pay and is under a debt to pay 1:0 all the other human personalities that there are. If this cannot be achieved as a matter of indoctrination, the criminal law is a very bad second best. We cannot do without it. We must enforce it. But in enforcing it we know that we are pursuing an expedient and not hoping to achieve a principle.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: I should like to speak for longer, as I am sure every hon. Member would, on this fascinating subject, but I intend to speak for only a few minutes.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), as he often does, has spoken to us less as a politician than as a philosopher. What he said at the conclusion of his speech I should like to think about at length. Broadly speaking, I think that he is right.
I am bound to say, however, that there could not be a greater difference in content and in tone between what he has just said and what was said by the Leader of the Conservative Party to a rally of Conservative women on Tuesday. It is no use saying, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that we must now agree to call this quits, that the speech never was made in the form we think it was made. That simply will not do.
As I have said on other occasions, I do not have any animosity towards the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). I think that his conduct over a whole range of social issues has in the past been excellent. But this speech is not. I have read it again and again to try to find some virtue in it or a reason why it was made. I cannot think of one. There are extraordinary references to the fact: that the abolition of corporal punishment has not reduced crime, as if anybody ever claimed that getting rid of corporal punishment would do that.
There is an extraordinary reference to capital punishment, and the Conservative Amendment which was moved.
Despite the right hon. and learned Gentleman's saying, quite rightly, that he would never countenance those issues being discussed in this House on a party basis, his own Leader makes it quite clear that he regards an Amendment moved by private Members as being a Conservative Amendment.
I will quote, not the first words of the speech mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench to which the right hon. Gentleman took exception. but the last words of the speech:
The maintenance of law and order is something that the British citizen values deeply.
We would all agree with that.
It will be one of the first tasks of the next Conservative Government to restore confidence in the ability of the authorities to control crime and to keep order.
If that is not a political statement, designed for a political effect, I have never read one. It does not become the right hon. and learned Gentleman then to criticise my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for perfectly rightly retaliating to that kind of attack.

Mr. Hogg: Cannot the hon. Member see that it must be the duty of every party to make that one of its most important planks. Without necessarily abusing the other, each party is bound to produce a statement to that effect.

Mr. Walden: Yes, but if in the General Election of 1964 I had gone around saying that it would be one of the functions of the new Labour Government to restore the decencies of political life, would there not have been an implication that they had somehow languished under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government? When one speaks of restoring something, is not the implication that something has seriously gone wrong with it?

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to keep on interrupting the hon. Gentleman—it would be discourteous if I did so—but the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the Leader of his party did precisely that, both in 1964 and in 1966.

Mr. Walden: I do not accept for a moment that he put it in that context. Had he done so, he would have been wrong.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must bear in mind that many of us, including, I am sure, the Home Secretary, have in mind not simply the question of crime but the question of race. We have seen what has happened to that argument. Despite guarantees and pledges about this being a non-party matter, it now bids fair to becoming a very serious party issue. I do not want to make any more of this point, other than to say that I prefer the views of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. When he says that this ought to be kept out of party politics, he is right; and so should the race issue.
It is all very well to talk about not exaggerating and not dramatising, but it is impossible not to do so. If senior public figures make speeches upon issues in which the implication is that something which should be done about crime is not being done, and if they say it at a time when dramatic trials are in progress, inevitably the public will take them seriously, and inevitably there will be an escalation. That is a very good reason for party leaders not to make speeches of that kind in that context.
To come to the remarks actually made by the Leader of the Opposition, even there I do not think that what was claimed and said, whether or not it was said in a party sense, necessarily stands up to analysis. For instance, nobody has yet mentioned that although police recruitment was inhibited by the Government's financial measures, nevertheless the number of people who have been brought into employment in order to release the police has, under this Government, increased by 9,000. These are traffic wardens and other people who have been used to release policemen, sometimes on a man-for-man basis, for ordinary police work.
This is a valuable point which should be brought into any discussion and which was not referred to in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. That should be stressed, and it should also be stressed, when the Government are accused of parsimony, that the amount of money spent on new radio equipment, new communications equipment and on all the ancillaries and assistance that a modern police force needs, has risen very sharply.
I would like to quote from the Home Office figures on account. There has been a sharp increase in the amount of money which has been paid on the last Vote passed by the House on all these things, an increase of 8·7 per cent. Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I do not want to play the numbers game, but if these allegations are made they must be rebutted by reference to statistics. That 8·7 per cent. increase has gone on increased pay to the police, increased police strength, additional expenditure on police records services, additional staff, increased expenditure on wireless equipment, and so on. All of that has to be taken into the reckoning when it is said that the Government are not doing as much as they should to assist in respect of crime.
Here I make reference to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who said some extraordinary things in a very pleasant way. His manner was pleasant, but when he says that the Government take a negative, inept attitude to crime. they fail in their duty and they acquiesce in new forms of violence, this is extraordinarily exaggerated language, and some regard should be paid to what the Government are doing financially.
The general proposition of the Conservative Party in all our debates is: cut public expenditure. The detailed speeches of the members of the Conservative Party are about how we should spend more. Here we have another example of the same phenomenon——

Mr. Hogg: In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that he was not dealing with crime generally but with the whole question of demonstration and protest with which I deliberately did not concern myself.

Mr. Walden: Quite so, he talked about what he called new forms of violence, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Leader of the Opposition also mentioned this in his speech, and said that it was absorbing police resources, the plain implication being that this had an effect on the number of policemen who could engage on catching criminals. This is a relevant point and, if it were true that the Government were acquiescing in new forms


of violence, that would be a very serious charge.
I do not think the right hon and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East, whose speeches I always enjoy, should have put it like that and left it like that. I do not think for a moment that it is true. Nor do I think it follows that, if we looked at the statistics, the claim of the Leader of the Opposition would be borne out. If a party argument is to be made of this, it ought to be on the basis of four years of Labour Government and the last four years of Tory Government.
May I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman now and promise never to do so in the country? If I were to make the kind of speech that could be made in rebuttal, it would attempt to prove probably the equally foolish hypothesis that the Labour Party cares about putting down criminals whereas the Conservative Party does not. I could, for instance, cite that the increase in crime in London during the last four years has been 2·3 per cent., whereas in the last four years of the Conservative Government it was 7·9 per cent. The police strength in London in the last four years has gone up by 2,210, whereas under the Conservative Government it went up by 1,205.
I could cite that crime in the whole country has risen in the last four years by 4·8 per cent., whereas in the last four years of the Conservative Government it rose by 9·4 per cent. I could talk about police recruitment. Admittedly, we shall not have the figures until the end of March, but we do not need those figures to say that in the same four-year period under the Labour Government recruitment was 8,400, whereas in the last four years of the Conservative Government it was 6,400. So one could go on.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right; we can all play the numbers game. It is foolish for us to do so, but this was started by the Leader of the Conservative Party, who was justly and rightly corrected on this issue on Saturday by the Home Secretary. If the Conservative Party intends to pursue this issue, the Labour Party—which is a dangerous animal; it defends itself when it is attacked—will necessarily put its case with evidence, and, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes it or not, we

shall be trapped into indulging in the numbers game.
In response to my hon. Friend's Motion and the debate which he has initiated, the wisest things have been said by himself, by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Mary-lebone, when they have taken crime in a social context and divorced it from the question of law enforcement, which tends to be a separate issue, and stressed that it relates to morality and social ambiances, and that it is international. The rise in crime is international. The United States has appalling figures, New York has had incredible increases in crime, and so have Chicago and Los Angeles.
We shall be glad to hear the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone or his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition talking about that at any time. What we do not accept, and what arouses resentment in some of us, is that the issue should be presented in a way that at least appears to make a party issue of it. If it is, we shall retaliate in the same spirit.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I shall not follow the same line as the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden). It is obvious to anybody listening to the debate that it would have been far better if the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and the reply to it by the Home Secretary had not been made. The numbers game clearly does not improve our discussions of the matter in the House.
I entirely agree with the approach of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). In this and many other aspects he shows himself to be much superior to the Leader of the Opposition. I entirely agree with him when he says that we are really discussing what is a second best. When we talk of law enforcement we must realise that people commit crime basically because they do not accept current morality. One of the most shaking experiences I ever had was when appearing in a very serious case, to realise that I had no point of mental contact with the man I was defending. It was shaking to me when I discussed with him his alleged crimes to realise that he had no


semblance of a background of morality against which he could judge the crimes with which he was charged, and he was unable to appreciate points that I put to him at all. He had no moral sense, no moral values. I realised then that there is an enormous problem arising from our anonymous society, when a man is conditioned by mass media and has no moral values of any kind and consequently takes seriously what a man with any vestige of morality would have been able to see in some kind of perspective.
The problem will increase if our civilisation continues to develop as it is at present. It is an enormous problem. One hon. Member mentioned that one category with which we are concerned consists of those with abnormal minds. One of the great concerns of our time should be not only abnormal or defective minds but moral defectives or amoral people with no sense of morality. We shall find them increasingly coming within the purview of the courts as they commit crimes of various kinds. We need a very detailed and careful analysis of the effect of mass media on the minds and actions of persons of this kind.
A second category mentioned consists of the hardened criminals. The great increase in calculated crime in our great cities is a matter of concern to all parties, and no party advantage should be taken of it. It is of the utmost importance that there should be sufficient police officers to meet this great threat, which clearly is a matter of common concern. As a society, we must be prepared to spend a great deal more money on this. The people involved are not those of abnormal minds. They calculate the risks. One of the reasons for the great increase is that, whether we like it or not, big crime does pay, and it will pay increasingly unless those responsible are brought to book. At present an unhappily small percentage are. While this happens there is an increasing attraction in that kind of life, with its easy gains.
I do not know, any more than any other hon. Member, what is the cause of the tremendous increase in crime throughout the world and the disregard for the rule of law. But what I know and feel very keenly is that one of the great requirements of our time is that all political

parties should state boldly the necessity in this country for a return to the rule of law. I deliberately used the word "return". Personal freedom and democracy are possible for a sustained period in a country which obeys the rule of law. The twin pillars of democracy are freedom and order. Order is necessary to guarantee freedom. When there is, for example, a clash of freedoms, as there increasingly is in a sophisticated society, there must be order to sort out the consequences. By the rule of law I mean unequivocally that every person, institution and organisation is subject to the same law and must obey it. We provide democratic processes by means of which laws can be changed if necessary, and we must see that our processes are kept up to date and overhauled and changed as necessary. It is a fair criticism that many of our institutions need change, and that very often the Government and the governed are too remote from each other that they do not share, or do not appear to share, the same objects.
What is disturbing in the country generally is that so many of the public regard themselves as rather remote from the law and its values. When crime is committed, how many of them pass by and almost see it committed under their noses and do not think that it affects them as citizens? This is a very disturbing factor.
Equally disturbing are the increasing claims by various sections of the community to be outside or above the law. There should be a concerted effort by responsible people to ensure that it is understood and implemented that students, the trade unions, Government Departments, high officials, political leaders, employers' associations and many other institutions are all subject to the same law and must obey it. The claims sometimes made by Government officials to be in some way above the law—or the impression they create—are very disturbing. If we do not assert the rule of law but allow people to get away with violence, force, threats, arrogant assumptions of authority and so on, people will get so fed up that they will turn for protection to movements which are little concerned with such rights as individual freedoms. We have seen it in other countries, where Fascist Governments have come to power, just as Communist Governments have come to power, in the resulting chaos and disarrangement which


has followed weak democratic Governments.
The essence of liberal government—I use the word "liberal" with a small "I", though it should be a large one—is that we not only believe in democratic government but believe that it should be strong democratic government. It does not follow that because we are a democracy we believe in weak government. An essential test of effective democratic Governments is whether they are strong, and this is a matter of politics. I entirely disagree: with the suggestion that we are concerned here only with a social problem and not a political problem. It is a political problem for the Government to see that the rights of people are properly safeguarded—I mean the rights of all people, not sections—and that everyone is subject to the rule of law.
The judiciary must be, as traditionally in our country it always has been, entirely independent. We must arrest the processes by which, sometimes almost with Government connivance, bodies can put themselves outside the jurisdiction of our courts for many purposes.
Unless the people feel that the rule of law is vitally important to their lives, unless there is that general feeling within society, we should not be surprised that we see a tremendous increase in organised crime. We should not be surprised if in our remote suburbs in the anonymous society we have a growth of

people or of communities which do not seem to have——

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Dewar rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, noting the growing public anxiety about the maintenance of law and order, deplores the increasing and dangerous distortions which result from the increasing tendency to present the problems of lawlessness in political rather than social terms.

BANK OVERDRAFTS

7.0 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: Mr. Speaker, may I formally ask that the Motion standing in my name—
That this House, believing that the future prosperity of the country is dependent on the free and full development of private enterprise and believing that the practice of the present Government of attempting to enforce undesirable policies without any legal authority is unconstitutional and wrong, deplores the handicaps sought to be imposed by the Government on the private sector of the economy by restricting bank overdrafts.—
be now moved?

Mr. Speaker: No. It is now past 7 o'clock. It cannot be done.

Orders of the Day — VEHICLE AND DRIVING LICENCES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: May I make two observations before we begin consideration of the Bill. I have added to my provisional selection of Amendments—I announce this for the benefit of both Front Benches—a Liberal Amendment, No. 31.
Much more important, when two Government Amendments were made to the Bill in Standing Committee, bringing the Isles of Scilly into the compass of the Bill, the Chairman of Standing Committee A ruled that it was for the Public Bill Office to decide whether the amended Bill when reported was prima facie hybrid. I quote the Chairman's remarks:
when the Bill is reported back to the House it will be for the Public Bill Office to decide if the Bill, as amended, is prima facie hybrid. If it should so decide… the Bill would then be referred to the Examiners, who would decided whether it was, in fact, hybrid."—["OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 17th December. 1968; c. 119.]
The Public Bill Office has, in fact, decided that the Bill, as amended, is not prima facie hybrid, for the following reason. The Amendments made in Committee—the two Amendments which Amendment No. 3 seeks to amend—were only declaratory in that they made no change in the law but only in its administration. The law existed before, although it was not enforced. In the same way. Income Tax was not collected in the Isles of Scilly until after the Finance Bill, 1953. which was not held to be hybrid. I therefore rule that this Bill is not hybrid.
I have posted up my selection of Amendments, as is my custom. The first is new Clause 1.

New Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 97 (MINIMUM AGE FOR DRIVING) OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1960.

In subsection (1) of section 97 of the Act of 1960, the Act of 1960, the table shall be amended by leaving out the words—

' 1. Motor cycle or invalid carriage
16'


and inserting the words—


' 1. Invalid carnage
15


1A. Motor cycle
16'—



[Dr. Winstanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is a simple Clause which, I think will, attract the sympathy of the House. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept it. If he is unable to accept it in its existing form, I hope that he will accept its principle.
Section 97(1) of the 1960 Act sets the minimum age limits for the holding of various licences. The lowest age allowed to hold a licence is there given as 16 and the class is:
1. Motor cycles or invalid carriages.

The Clause seeks to separate invalid carriage and accord it the earlier age of 15. There are reasons for this I hope, which will, commend themselves to the House. I would think that there are no dangers involved in this. I appreciate that it is essential that we ensure that people are not permitted to drive mechanically propelled vehicles on the highway unless they are of sufficient age to behave responsibly. To that we adhere. Nevertheless, there are special difficulties facing disabled persons, who can get about only by virtue of having mechanically propelled invalid carriages, for which they must hold a driving licence. They are also subjected to special tests, both in respect of the nature of the disability and in respect of their proficiency in the act of driving.

The provision of invalid carriages has been extended. We look forward to further extensions. It is by virtue of the provision of mechanically propelled methods of transport that many seriously disabled people are able to work and lead lives which are profitable to themselves, to their families, and to the community. As the school-leaving age is 15, and as the present minimum age at which a person can drive an invalid carriage is 16, there is a gap of 12 months which for many people can have serious consequences.

I have experience of constituents and, indeed, of patients—persons with disabilities—who were able to attend school because special transport was provided to take them to and from school, but who, when they left school and wished to obtain employment, faced the immediate problem of how to get to and from


their employment. We have tabled the Clause to meet this difficulty.

Safeguards exist. Nobody is issued with a licence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle unless he has reached the requisite standard of proficiency. A course of instruction is given and the person is properly supervised. This category of person—the disabled person who could be enabled to work by having a driving licence—is not the type of person who will go tearing about the roads at high speed. He is the kind of person who is likely to drive with a special degree of responsibility.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply sympathetically.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and realise that in his work outside the House he must have come across many instances where he would feel that a reduction in the minimum age for driving would be of advantage. In the interests of road safety we have not allowed people to drive any motor vehicle on a public road until a minimum age has been reached. A different minimum age is set for different classes of vehicle to allow for the differences in stature and physical strength required to drive them. It is also necessary to ensure that persons driving on the highway have reached an age at which they can be expected to have developed a sense of responsibility and to be mature.
The minimum age for driving invalid carriages has been 16 since it was originally introduced as a separate class in 1930. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We think that this age is about right. Although the mechanical conditions of vehicles have improved since 1930, driving conditions have not. In fact, they have become much more difficult. The majority of severely handicapped young people attend special classes from which the leaving age is normally 16. As soon as they take up employment they can be provided with personal transport to give them the nobility they need.
This is the experience we have had. We have no evidence that the present age limit causes any hardship to the

young disabled person. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific cases which he can give me, I will certainly look into them. The mass of evidence so far is that there is not sufficient call for a reduction of the driving age to make it something that the Government could, in the interests of road safety generally, accept. For this reason, although we are completely sympathetic with the hon. Gentleman's objective, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Clause, or. failing that, the House to reject it.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Can the Parliamentary Secretary produce accident statistics for 16-year olds? His argument is based on two premises, the first of which is that the hazards involved in a reduction of the minimum age from 16 to 15 might be very serious. Therefore, we should know the accident figures relating to 16-year olds. The hon. Gentleman's second premise, on which it is for the House to reach a decision, is that there is no necessity for this reduction.

Mr. Carmichael: I could not without notice give any figures of accidents relating to 16-year olds. We have had no serious requests, other than that which arises on the Clause, to reduce the minimum age from 16 to 15. Sixteen is the youngest age at which anyone is allowed to drive, and this covers motor cycles and three-wheelers as well. As I have said, most severely handicapped young people stay at school until they are 16 and have transport to and from school, and so they are covered. Once they leave school and start work, they are able to apply for a licence for an invalid vehicle. We have had no request for the law to be changed, which makes it appear that this is not a burning question. We do not feel that this is a risk which should be taken, not only for these people but for the rest of the community. Road conditions are now much worse than they were in 1930 when the age limit was introduced, and the roads are certainly no safer now.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Parliamentary Secretary has explained why he cannot accept the new Clause, but I hope that he will go a little further in view of the excellent case advanced by the hon. Member for


Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). The Parliamentary Secretary's first argument concerned the lack of evidence. As the numbers involved are obviously very small, it will be extremely difficult to get evidence, but I hope that he will say that he will go into the question to establish the nature of the problem.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was a common age for driving licences for vehicles, motor cycles and invalid carriages. But the invalid carriages have to be compared with some of the terrifying machines which go by the name of motor cycles, and any difference in ages might be justified by a difference in the construction of the machines themselves.
The most important consideration, of course, concerns those who leave school at the age of 15. The age limit ought not to impede the efforts of young disabled persons to get employment. In the last few months we have been considering appropriate ages in other connections, and the time may have come to consider this age limit. I appreciate that on the evidence available it would be wrong to accept the new Clause, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look further into the matter to see whether there is a problem and, if there is, what its extent is.

Mr. Carmichael: The numbers involved are obviously small, and statistics are, therefore, difficult to obtain and would not always be reliable. The accident figures for 16-year-olds on two-wheeled vehicles are appalling, and it is because of this that recent legislation has limited the size of vehicles which may be driven by anyone under 17.
While we could not, in fairness to other road users and those who drive invalid carriages themselves, accept the new Clause, if the hon. Member for Cheadle can give us details of any specific cases we will inquire into them, because we do not want to hamper disabled persons who leave school a year earlier than is normal. Our information, however, is that severely handicapped people normally leave school at 16, so that there is no gap. The question has not arisen before, but I undertake that we shall consider it sympathetically.

Dr. Winstanley: There is a difficulty even for those who remain at special

schools until they are 16. If they want employment immediately after leaving school, they have to have a driving licence for an invalid carriage, and that means that they need to have a provisional licence in order to undertake the stringent training course which is required for the licence itself. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the possible danger to other road users, but I assure him that these tests are so strict that they provide in themselves a special safeguard.
However, although I do not regard the Parliamentary Secretary's answer as wholly satisfactory or sympathetic, in view of his assurance to look at any special case which is sent to him by me or any other hon. Member I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

PENALTIES FOR EVASION OF VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY

The penalties laid down in section 7 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 (as amended by section 11 of the Finance Act 1967) for using and keeping vehicles without a licence shall not be subject to mitigation under the provisions of section 27 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (as amended by section 5 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1957) and of section 286 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952.—[Mr. Arthur Lewis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The object of the Clause is to give a determined and definite punishment where punishment is due to those who persistently and deliberately flout the law, many of them for years on end. At present, magistrates can lessen a penalty at their discretion when someone is found guilty of deliberately evading the payment of the road fund licence. I interpose the explanation that the very few honourable men and women who occasionally overlook the payment of the road fund licence because of forgetful-ness or some other good reason will not be affected.
I shall use the example of London, but what I have to say applies to the country generally. If I were so stupid or


forgetful as to forget to renew my licence, the Greater London Council would notify me and would give me an opportunity to put the matter right. If I then forgot or deliberately ignored what might be called the warning, the G.L.C. would follow up the matter and tell me that I had been two or three years—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) laughs, but this is what happens. The G.L.C. would tell me that I was now two or three years in arrears, and, rather than take the trouble of taking me to court, it would settle the matter if some of the arrears were cleared up. The Council has been very generous in its approach to this work.
The G.L.C. takes this line because the offence is now so prevalent.

Mr. Carmichael: Mr. Carmichael indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I assure him that it is prevalent. In Adjournment debates and on other occasions I have often been told that it is not prevalent. My view is to the contrary. If it were not prevalent there would be no need for this Bill. Figures recently issued by the G.L.C. show that there were 40,000 prosecutions—prosecutions, not offences. I have evidence to prove that there are hundreds of thousands of such offences. This figure of 40,000 includes not only cars, people with "jalopies", but people driving luxury cars and business firms with heavy and light lorries. The total amount of fines from that 40,000 was £450,000. That gives a figure of approximately £11 per head. The heavy lorry owners would have to pay about £300 or £400 in licence fees.
I am not dealing just with one year. This goes back many years, and I can give the Minister, and any hon. Member, complete and absolute proof of cases where a vehicle has been reported without a licence not for one or two months but for 12 months. After 12 months, the G.L.C, having tried to enforce mitigated penalties, eventually prosecutes. I could quote cases, giving the numbers of vehicles and where they are parked to prove this. The G.L.C. has had hundreds of thousands of reports from the police, enforcement officers and the general public. After years of such reports, no action is taken, in many instances because the courts just cannot cope. Since

I have been running a campaign about this, I have had some fascinating details given to me by some very reputable people.
A justice of the peace in Greater London carried out a survey. He gave figures to me, which I submitted to the Ministry, showing what a ludicrous situation we have now reached. It is wrong that a law-abiding person who pays for his road fund licence, his vehicle insurance, his roadworthiness test, and his parking meter fines—and sometimes these are caused because he cannot get on the meter because there are unlicensed cars parked there—should be fined if he inadvertently stops on a yellow band or overstays the limit at a meter for ten minutes. There is a set figure and there is no question of any mitigation here. He can go to the court, of course, but if it can be proved that he has overstayed his time or parked on the yellow line, although it may not have been a deliberate offence, then he is fined. Such people can give excuses; they can say that they were delayed ten minutes because of the wants of nature. It is then said to them: "Sorry, but you should have taken note of that and not left it to the last minute". This has happened.
They could say that they were delayed at a shop and could not get out; but still the fine would apply. I suggest that the same sort of thing should apply here. I have it on the authority of the enforcement officers that they would welcome something like this because, as a result of the lapse of time, the whole thing now becomes a mockery. I will give an example of five 5-ton lorries working for the Islington Borough Council, taking away rubble from a building site. They have been unlicensed for two years, and for two years they have been reported at monthly intervals. The number of the vehicles, the type, the colour, where they are parked, where the driver lives—all has been given to the G.L.C., the Ministry of Transport, the Home Secretary. After two years the Home Office told the informant that it could not trace the vehicles—they seemed to have vanished. Yet the firm has a fleet of these lorries, and the Ministry has the name and address of the companies. So another investigation was made. After two years, one of the lorries was traced and the firm taken to court. The fine


was £5. That is making a mockery of justice.

Mr. John Nott: I thought that the hon. Member said that these lorries were owned by the Islington Council?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis If I did say that, I did not mean it. They were working for the Islington Borough Council, taking away rubble. They get something like £3 or £4 a load, and they do five or six loads a day. They do this tax-free, and the reason why they will not licence their lorries is that they do not want to be registered for tax purposes. The firm is getting £300 or £400 a week tax-free.

This is in Durham Road, Islington, at the corner of Lennox Road. One can go there any day of the week and find hundreds of vehicles. I pass this road every week and see the same vehicles parked in the same areas. Yet, when the information is given to the authorities, they say that there is so much of it that they cannot deal with it. By the time they do get round to it, the vehicle is probably not in existence or has vanished. If the drivers and owners knew that these deliberate offences would automatically render them liable to the maximum penalty, two things would happen.

First, the deliberate dodgers would know what would happen, and many would take out licences. It would also mean that the G.L.C. and other local authorities would get on with the job of enforcement in the one or two cases where deliberate dodging continued. I ask the Minister to see that this would relieve our forces. It would not introduce any new principle, because this is operated in relation to a number of other offences. The Minister would be doing a good job through easing the work of the enforcement officers, he would be doing a good job by assisting the local authorities, and he would be relieving the courts. Perhaps even more important, he would get millions of pounds extra into the revenue, which is at present being lost because of this dodging.

With the wireless and television licences, a big effort is made to get in £5, but when it comes to getting in £25—and in the case of the heavy lorries hundreds of pounds are involved—no

effort is made to track down these persistent offenders. My new Clause, if it were accepted, would be helpful to all concerned.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The argument of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on this theme, which he has made particularly his own, namely, that the lack of flexibility in the fining procedure for parking meter offences should be extended to those people who appear before magistrates accused of evading their licence duty obligations, does not stand up. If flexibility is desirable in this case, as I believe it is, there is a case for extending it to fines for parking meter offences rather than saying that because fines for parking meter offences are not flexible we should introduce the same rigidity in the matter which we are discussing.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed my point. There is already flexibility concerning road licences as distinct from parking meter fines. The council can and does give a person the opportunity to clear the debt before prosecuting. That does not happen in the case of parking offences and others.

Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate that that was one of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. But the Clause does not deal with the councils; it deals with the discretion of magistrates. I should have thought that there was an argument for giving magistrates the benefit of flexibility in both cases. I should have thought that the argument which the hon. Gentleman could have put forward and with which I might have sympathised was that if there was widespread and deliberate evasion there should be provision to enable increased penalties to be imposed by magistrates.
The point which concerns me is that this is the third time in, I should think, three months that I have heard this argument put forward by the hon. Member for West Ham, North. I am aware that he has made numerous presentions on this subject through the channels available to him in the House. It is incumbent on the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the points which have been made time and again. If the hon. Member's allegations are true, he is entitled to an answer. If they are not true, he is


entitled to a Select Committee. If the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that in many streets, the names of which the hon. Gentleman has provided, there are people who are deliberately avoiding their obligations, somebody in the Ministry of Transport or the Home Office should by now have conducted an inquiry.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether an investigation has been made, because it is fair both to the House and to the good name of many motorists and owners of heavy vehicles——

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Has the hon. Gentleman taken a look in the House of Commons car park? There are a good few out-of-date licences there.

Mr. Heseltine: I should have thought that that called for another Select Committee.
It is necessary for the reputation of motorists and owners of large lorries that this matter should be thoroughly investigated and reported on. I cannot understand why there has been no inquiry of this sort. If an investigation has not taken place, I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary, who has heard these allegations over the last few months, has done about consulting people, for example, the police or local authorities, on the extent to which they believe this problem exists.

Mr. Archie Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the figures which we were given a few weeks ago that there were 40,000 prosecutions for the evasion of tax in the Greater London Council area. Surely that proves that there is widespread evasion.

Mr. Heseltine: That is a prima facie case in support of what the hon. Member for West Ham, North has said. But what the hon. Member for West Ham, North says is not that there are a lot of prosecutions, but that there is a vaster field in which no action at all is taken. This is the point which concerns me. If the police are doing their duty, and prosecutions are being instituted, the hon. Member for West Ham, North has not a great deal to be aggrieved about. But his repeated argument is that, despite all the evidence which he has sent to the

Ministry of Transport or anybody else prepared to receive it, nothing happens. Therefore, the 40,000 prosecutions about which we have heard are not relevant to the case made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North.
One thing which is likely to solve this problem is the certainty of detection, and. having been detected, the certainty of prosecution.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman refers to the certainty of prosecution. I could give him the name and address of a driver who pulled up suddenly on a pedestrian crossing and nearly knocked an old lady down. I reported the vehicle. because it was unlicensed, to the Greater London Council. Twelve months afterwards, I saw the same vehicle. I spoke to the driver and he said to me, "You reported me 12 months ago, but nothing has happened. I could not care less". Twelve months after the event the same vehicle can be seen, and I will take the hon. Gentleman and show it to him tomorrow, unlicensed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not widen the debate too much. The hon. Gentleman moved a new Clause which tackles the problem, or part of it, in a specific way.

Mr. Heseltine: It is not for me to accompany the hon. Gentleman, but I am sympathetic to his point. It merely reinforces what I am saying to the Parliamentary Secretary. If the case as we have heard it detailed by the hon. Gentleman is true, it calls for serious action on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should be glad to hear that action is anticipated. I would be even more pleased to hear that it has been taken.
I suspect that the answer to the problem is a much greater fear of detection and much greater awareness in the event of detection that there will be prosecutions. In the event of a prosecution, the magistrates should have flexibility in the fines that they impose. But to be certain of prosecution the police must be brought up to the strength which they believe necessary to enable them to carry out their duties. The House cannot let this debate end without realising that the police are being held back in the number of recruits that they want.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Brief reference to another subject.

Mr. Heseltine: The reference was complete, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the very serious allegations of the hon. Member for West Ham, North. The House has heard the same allegations repeated too often for there not to be a full and detailed reply.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I have listened to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on this subject on a number of occasions. He has done enough to prove his case and is entitled to an answer. As a moderately law-abiding citizen, I am alarmed about the great evasion of the road vehicle tax. If a person wants to lay up his car, if he does not tell the licensing authorities, he is liable to pay the whole of the road fund tax. The hon. Member, by his new Clause, wants the whole of the tax to be paid plus a penalty as against a nominal sum when people are found out two or three years later.
This is a very opportune time for the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the new Clause, or, if he is not happy about its drafting—and I know that the hon. Member for West Ham, North would give way on that—something similar, as the temptation to evade the tax will be much greater in the coming months because of the drastic increase in the cost of the licence. The duty has already gone up from £15 to £17 10s. and it is now £25, and those who do not pay the big increases in the duty for lorries evade having their vehicles inspected.
The position has reached such a stage that the hon. Member for West Ham, North is quite right to put down his new Clause. He is entitled to an answer. I hope that if he does not get a satisfactory answer he will continue with his campaign, when I shall be glad to support him in his efforts.

Mr. Carmichael: We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) many times on this subject and he has been extremely helpful in many ways during Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill.
I have given the figures before, but it should be realised that this is not a question of inactivity. The number of Excise offences reported and investigated

has risen steadily. In 1958, for example, in a vehicle population of almost 8 million, the number of offences reported and investigated was 59,000, or one in 133. In 1967, with a vehicle population of just over 14 million, 348,000 Excise offences were reported and investigated—that is, one in 40. There is undoubtedly an increase. It would be wrong to suggest that nothing was being done about it and that the authorities and the police were not doing something.
On a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, I have tried to say that the job of spotting and, with the present system of registration, the job of tracing become very absorbing of manpower and require great effort. Nevertheless, the figures show that in 1967 nearly 350,000 cases were investigated and some prosecuted, depending on the results of the investigation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that a police inspector at Caledonian Road Police Station said to me that he knows that thousands of these cases are reported and that the police do their job but nothing is ever done and so they get fed up with reporting these offences? This surely means that the figure of 350,000 could be doubled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Report stage. We do not want too many interventions in the debate from one hon. Member.

Mr. Carmichael: Certain subjects which have been raised during this debate are not within the province of the Ministry of Transport. The basic purpose of the Bill, however, has been, because of the reports which we have had from my hon. Friend and many others, to look at the whole subject of vehicle licensing.
There are two basic reasons. One is that the present system is in great difficulty because of the numbers, and we believe the evidence to be that in the next few years it will be unworkable. Secondly, the new system, particularly with the continuous liability, will make it much more difficult, and certainly much more costly, for anyone to be able to evade his due Revenue duty to the Government. The whole purpose of the Bill will be upheld if during the course of the evening we can get through the problems of


continuous liability with the enthusiasm with which the new Clause has been referred to.
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) mentioned the certainty of detection. This is a point which is already covered in the Bill. With computerisation, the certainty of detection is much greater than before.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) spoke about something being done to increase the size of the police force and its ability to discover offences——

Sir H. Harrison: I do not think I mentioned the police force.

Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps I was mistaken. I was working out the response to the hon. and gallant Member to reassure him that when some of the provisions of the 1968 Act come into operation there will be a great release of police for other jobs because traffic wardens will be taking over many of the jobs of the police. They have been doing this during the last 10 years, and they have done an extremely good job. Many things have been done.
7.45 p.m.
Various of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, including the specific instance which he quoted, are matters for the Home Office. As for the investigation, however, about which the hon. Member for Tavistock and my hon. Friend have asked, the Bill is the result of many of the cases which have been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Transport, the Government and the licensing authorities.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Am I to understand that nothing is to be done about this until 1975, when the computer centre is in use? Can we not have an answer on the specific details and cases which have been given by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Give them to the G.L.C.

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend has raised those cases, but the hon. Member for Tavistock will agree that these are matters for the enforcement authorities and not for the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Lewis: Everyone passes the buck.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Carmichael: As I say, this is a matter for the Home Office and for the local licensing authorities, and not for the Ministry of Transport.
In other instances the hon. Member, or many of his hon. Friends, has spoken of the over-centralisation of government. This is one matter in which it would hardly be appropriate for the Ministry of Transport to do this type of job. Our job is to provide the framework for a thorough reappraisal of the whole system in order, as well as doing the other practical job, which is vital also, to revise the system in such a way that evasion will be much more difficult.
My hon. Friend in his new Clause asks that there should be a flat-rate fine at a high level for evasion. He has mentioned that in certain courts only nominal fines have been imposed for evasion of duty. While we believe that the penalty should be appropriate for the offence—at least, to discourage people from committing the offence—we are not implying what the appropriate penalty should be.
To impose a maximum penalty without regard to the circumstances would not fail to cause considerable injustice and hardship. No matter how grave the offence, there will always be cases in which the extenuating circumstances are such as to make the imposition of a standard penalty inequitable. For instance, in some cases concerning heavy lorries there could be a fine of up to £1,500 or even more. While, perhaps, in the case cited by my hon. Friend, that might be a just penalty—although that is for the court to decide—in many cases a fine of £1,500 would be quite inappropriate. As always, it should be left to the courts to decide, and it would be wrong for the Minister to lay down a rigid maximum penalty. It would be quite unusual to do so, except in matters such as parking fines.
Parking fines, however, are usually fairly nominal. I know that some motoring organisations do not feel that in congested areas they are sufficiently high. It has been argued in motoring journals that the penalty for parking offences is sufficiently low to be worth taking the


risk, whereas if it were higher in congested areas people would not take the risk.
There was, of course, a serious increase in the penalty from £20 or three times the normal rate of duty for the vehicle concerned to £50 or five times the annual rate of duty, whichever was the higher. This is the maximum penalty. To insist that it should always be the penalty in all the very large variety of cases which must come forward, giving no flexibility to the courts, would be asking too much. It would be a complete change in our attitude to the power and discretion of the courts.
Although I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's statement that some of the fines have not been as high as he would like, it would be wrong to tell the courts that they must impose a minimum penalty as high as the present maximum. When the Bill is law, there will be a maximum penalty of £50 or five times the annual duty. That is just about right. I hope that, having heard the arguments, my hon. Friend will withdraw his Clause.

Mr. Will Griffiths: I have listened with interest to the debate and the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, which I found, like the curate's egg, good in parts. I agree with him about the inflexibility of the penalties inherent in the new Clause, but was not satisfied with his failure to meet the point about widespread evasion. He said that this is not a matter for his Department, but for enforcement, and, therefore, for the Home Office.
But my hon. Friend is a member of the Government, and if he were seized of the seriousness of the argument, he could at least see that what has been said, on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, was drawn to the attention of his colleague in the Home Office and an undertaking sought from them that the law would be more energetically pursued. The House is entitled to that assurance.
The Bill will not be enforced for a number of years and, meanwhile, my hon. Friend has proved that the court's interpretation of the law seems to be too lenient. That was clearly implicit in his figure, which the Parliamentary

Secretary did not reject, that the 40,000 prosecutions by the G.L.C. had produced an average of £11 per case. Clearly, if there had been the long-standing and widespread evasion to which my hon. Friend has referred so many times, the average should have been higher.
I support those who have said that the time is long since gone when Ministers can say, "This has nothing to do with us." I urge the Parliamentary Secretary—I see that the Minister also is here—at least to say that these repeated allegations have been convincing enough for him to draw the matter to the attention of his Home Office colleagues to ensure a more vigorous prosecution of the law between now and the implementation of the Bill.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has joined us for this very serious debate. Although we had the usual courteous and helpful reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, he did not seem to appreciate the extent of the problem. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has an honourable record in pursuing this matter, but something which he did not mention is our obligation not only to enforce the law, but to the hard-pressed and perhaps over-taxed motorist who pays his dues without question and who carries so much of the burden. We have an obligation to the law-abiding citizens to see that those who step out of line deliberately are hammered hard.
One point made by the hon. Member should be cleared up. He spoke of mitigating arrangements before prosecution, but any question of mitigation can arise only when a case comes to court. Perhaps the Minister should put this right for the record.
We are entitled to some indication of the extent of this problem. Figures have been bandied around. The hon. Member talked of hundreds of thousands of cases. If that is so, millions of pounds are involved. There is a delicate relationship here, with local authorities acting as the Government's agents in revenue collection. This is not a matter of conflicting interests, but of responsibilities carried out by different authorities. We have a greater obligation


than to the Treasury—to the vast majority of decent and law abiding motorists who an; paying a great deal for the privilege of driving on our roads.
The hon. Member has carried out this campaign over a long time, has done a great deal of research and has worked very hard on behalf of the Treasury and the law abiding motorist. It would be wrong to complete our discussion without some assurance being given to him of a fresh initiative by the Government. We should hear that there will be a new drive against those who are evading their responsibilities and their taxes.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I, too, was hoping for a more favourable reply. I thank those hon. Members who have supported me on this matter. I would tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) that the G.L.C. itself has advised me that it has mitigating powers before prosecution, which are invariably operated.
I am astounded to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say again, "We will do this later; the police are overworked." Of course, but what I cannot seem to get over to him is that, whether or not the Bill is passed and, in 1975, the law is enforced more rigorously, an Act of Parliament is already on the Statute Book which lays down certain things which are not happening.
I mentioned the lorries which I have reported to the Ministry, to the Home Office and the G.L.C. I should have explained that when, after two years of having these reported, the authorities eventually catch up with one to impose a £5 fine, they then tell me that the lorry was dangerous, the steering and tyres were defective, and that it should not even have been on the road. This is very serious. These five-ton sand and gravel lorries which I and the police have reported are lethal weapons. The Home Office could not trace them and the Ministry referred the matter back to me; then the G.L.C. after two years saw a derisory fine of £5 imposed.
8.0 p.m.
The need is for action. There is no need for reports, because reports are made already. I can show the Minister a great file of them, and I can show him letters today from the G.L.C. I have reported cases. I have described the type of vehicle, its colour, its number,

where it is parked, where its driver lives. I have all but said whether or not he is married and whether or not he cohabits with his wife. Yet two years after that there is that same unlicensed vehicle and still in the same road. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, I ask the Minister—I would ask the Home Secretary but he is not here—suppose I were to report a drug party going on at such and such an address: would no action be taken for two years? I rather doubt it. I think that action would be taken immediately. There is no need for new legislation if only the law of the land were carried out. I am not concerned whether it is the Ministry of Transport or the Home Office or the G.L.C.; I could not care less about that. What I care about is that they should carry out the law, rather than tell me—and this is what I deeply resent—that, of course, when this Bill has been passed, and come 1975, then we can have proper reporting and investigation and all the rest. Why should they say that? These things are already reported this very day. I could take the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tomorrow or any day this week to roads, not far from this House, where they can see these vehicles which have been reported for two years on end.
Why is it action is not taken? I will tell the Minister. Because the G.L.C. tells me that the fines are so derisory that it is not worth taking action, and that such fines are prevalent. That is why I wish something to be done on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps I may, with permission, reply to some of the points which have just been put.
I have already tried to point out that it is not as though nothing is happening. The increase in the reporting and investigation of excise evasion has been very remarkable in the last few years, and there is a great deal of enforcement not only in London but all over the country. I gave the figures. In 1958 there was one prosecution in 133 cases; today the figure is one in 40. There has been a very big increase in the number of prosecutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths), as others have done, spoke about widespread evasion. While there may be widespread evasion, there is also


the greater seriousness with which the local authorities are tackling the problem. Of course I am seized of the seriousness of the argument which my hon. Friends have put, and the points which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has made have been drawn, not only by him but by myself, to the attention of the appropriate Ministry. Having done that, I still say that this is basically a matter for enforcement by the authorities and not any particular Minister or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said that people who have been evading should be hammered and hammered hard. I think those were his words. I took them down. That may be something we ourselves believe, but, fortunately, while Parliament lays down penalties, it leaves it to the courts to make decisions about imposing them, and while hon. Members may feel that in some cases the courts have been more lenient than they ought to have been, I think it would be a very big departure from our practice to legislate that the maximum penalty should be the automatic penalty, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North suggests. In some cases that would be too severe and too punitive. Flexibility must be left to the courts as long as we have the system which we have. We hope that that flexibility will be used by the courts in the best possible way as a deterrent to those likely to evade and also as a punishment for those who actually evade.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North spoke about defects found in lorries whose owners were evading tax, and he said there was no need for new legislation. We think there is a great need for legislation, and this is part of it. I agree that it will not bite right away, but I hope that he will realise that a great deal is already being done, and we believe that this is the best solution to the problem. As for defects in lorries, they are being dealt with right now. Last year compulsory testing of heavy vehicles was started—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes, I agree about that.

Mr. Carmichael: —and that is another method of catching up with defects in

vehicles on the roads. The penalties there are also very severe.
So while we know that there is evasion, and while we have looked at the points which have been made by my hon. Friend over a very long period, I must again emphasise that it is not as though nothing is being done, and it is unfair to the enforcement authorities to suggest that nothing has been done. A great deal has been done, and in very difficult circumstances, because it is a difficult, cumbersome and time-consuming business to check up on the vehicles and find their owners. None the less, 348,000 were chased up in 1967. That is a very high figure indeed. While there is no doubt that this is indeed a very serious problem, I think the method suggested by my hon. Friend, that there should be penalties of such a nature as he suggests, would be quite contrary to practice in this country, and I ask him to think on this and to withdraw his new Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 1

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 27, leave out from ' that ' to ' and ' in line 31 and insert:
in relation to any period before the transfer date, a local authority have and always had power to make arrangements with the Postmaster General for him to issue licences and collect duty under the Act of 1962 on their behalf '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed at the same time Amendment No. 5, in Clause 3, page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Carmichael: The Amendment is necessary because of the Post Office Bill, which will not receive Royal Assent before this Bill. Powers are given to local authorities to ask the Post Office to do certain things. It is proposed to empower local authorities under the Post Office Bill to ask the new Post Office Corporation to carry out certain functions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in line 33, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 48, in Schedule 1, page 36, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.

Mr. Heseltine: That is convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is in his place because the Amendment is designed to remove an Amendment which was introduced by the Government in Standing Committee. The purpose of the Government's Standing Committee Amendment was to make it possible for the vehicle licence revenue, the road tax, to be collected from people on the Scilly Isles who own cars.
The first major objection which my hon. Friends have—we voiced it in Committee—to this provision is the Government's desire to raise the taxation of the Scilly Islanders by this means. It was extraordinary that the Government made this change in Committee. The result is that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who represents the citizens of the Scilly Isles, has not had an opportunity until today to comment on this alteration as he was not a member of the Standing Committee.
My hon. Friends and I spent many hours opposing the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and during that experience we got used to the roughshod ways in which the constitutional practices were treated. I hope that we can expect something better from the present Minister, although I was surprised to find him using this questionable tactic of introducing a change of this kind in Committee. It is deplorable that this should be the first time that hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee have an opportunity of discussing the matter.
In these circumstances there was a real case for having discussions and consultations with those who will bear this taxation. This point was put to the Government in Committee, and subsequent to that stage the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me explaining why the Government did not think that such consultations

should take place. In his letter dated 20th January, 1969, the hon. Gentleman wrote:
I hardly think it would have been right to hold consultations with the Council on this point, thereby implying that there might be some scope for negotiation on whether an oversight of many years ago should be perpetuated now that it had come to light.
It was a feeble excuse. What evidence is there that this has been an oversight? Why is it not possible that when the original Isles of Scilly Order was introduced and in various resulting changes in road licensing generally it was decided to continue this exception? I see no reason to believe that this was an oversight. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives will explain that there are real differences of principle affecting the people who live on the islands. If there had been discussions and consultation, some of these points would have been settled.
8.15 p.m.
There are certain reasons why the islanders should be treated differently. The Western Morning News, the daily newspaper with the largest circulation in the West Country, gave a clear indication in an article published on 7th February last of the conditions that exist in the area. It stated:
The only metalled road in the Scillies is on St. Mary's, much of that is in poor condition and its total length is 11 miles. The four main off-islands of Tresco, St. Martin's, St. Agnes and Bryher have roads of about a mile in length, which have been made by the islanders themselves.
That is the background against which the people using these roads are to be asked to contribute £25 for their cars, plus any increase which might be made in the level of road tax in years to come.
There are some 200 cars on the islands. The use that one can make of a car there must be curtailed. Drivers do not enjoy the same facilities of travelling considerable distances as are enjoyed by motorists elsewhere in the United Kingdom. These cars are used mainly for the movement of goods which are imported into the Scillies by ship. The passenger usage for which there is scope is severely restricted. A car owner living on the islands who wishes to travel further afield must cross with his vehicle to the mainland, which is an expensive operation. The 40 miles must be done by ship ferry; and the moment


the car touches the soil of the mainland the owner must pay the road tax. This means that the only people who can escape this imposition are those who drive their cars exclusively on the islands.
It is relevant to consider that hardship will be suffered by these people. First. we must appreciate the transportation system between the island and the mainland. B.U.A. operates a helicopter service, and a private company operates a ship ferry service from St. Mary's to the mainland. The ferry is run as a profit-making operation. There is no subsidy, and it is an expensive business if one wishes to cross with one's car.
We may be told later that one of the justifications for extending road tax to the Scilly Islands is that there are many islands in Scotland where such an exception does not apply. It is important to remember that in those circumstances the islanders have the advantage of subsidised ship services. Because the Sallies' ferry service is not subsidised, all items imported into the islands are expensive. This is particularly relevant to motoring because, for example, petrol is up to 7d. a gallon more expensive than on the mainland. Most commodities are imported, which means that families on the islands must pay more for most goods.
We are speaking of small sums. As there are about 200 cars, the gross revenue which they would contribute would be about £5,000, and it is reasonable to assume that it would cost about £1,000 to collect that sum. In other words, this exercise will result in a net revenue of about £4,000. In view of the small sum involved and the hardships which the islanders must face, there is a case, in equity, to consider allowing this exception to continue.

Mr. Nott: I have to thank my hon. Friends for the very considerable vigilance they displayed in Standing Committee in protecting the interests of my constituents in the Isles of Scilly. They displayed far greater knowledge and understanding of the situation than did the Parliamentary Secretary who had the task of introducing the Amendment.
I have to say a number of harsh things about the Minister—he has probably heard them from me before—but I do not blame him personally. He did not guide

the Bill through Standing Committee, but he must bear responsibility for the gross incompetence which his Department displayed in this case. Whatever procedural technicalities there may be—and I do not raise again the point of the potential hybridity of this Bill—there is something thoroughly distasteful about a Government who do not think it wrong to introduce for the first time a new tax bearing on part of the United Kingdom by tabling Amendments in Standing Committee.
Where that action has been taken without due warning, or any notice whatsoever, either to the part of the country so concerned or to its council, which is established under Statute, or to the Member of Parliament representing that part of the United Kingdom, the Government's action can only be described as arrogant and obnoxious and altogether lacking in the courtesies and civilities which normally mark parliamentary life.
For historical reasons the Isles of Scilly have not up to now levied duty on vehicles, but the power to levy duty under Statute has been held by the Council of the Isles of Scilly for a considerable number of years. If local government independence means anything at all, and if the relationship between central Government and local government is to be one of co-operation rather than of confrontation, it might have been assumed that before removing a statutory right the Minister would at least have informed the Council that he intended so to do.
Similarly, it would have been in accordance with the normal courtesies under which we conduct our business in this House for the Minister to have informed the hon. Member most concerned of his intentions where the Minister was, in fact, excluding that Member from either representing his constituents' case on Second Reading or from serving in the Standing Committee in order to discuss the subject there. Moreover, when the matter had been discussed in that Committee and was brought to my attention the following day it would have been thought by any reasonable man that the Minister would at least have arranged then to have informed me and the council that he regretted the way in which the matter had been raised, and that he was now informing the council and the Member most concerned albeit after the event.
What happened was that I had to inform the Council of the Isles of Scilly of what happened in Standing Committee the previous day. To its astonishment, the Council found for the first time that this tax was to be levied without its ever having been mentioned to them beforehand. At the same time, the Ministry did not even then contact the council and ask it to discuss the matter. It was left to me to arrange a meeting between the Council and the Department. At not one single point of time have I had any communication with the Ministry.
I must point out to the Minister that on two occasions this week a Minister concerned with matters in my constituency has had the courtesy to inform me about something arising in the House the next day. In one instance, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy wrote to me the day before the Defence White Paper was published to tell me that in it certain announcements were to be made that affected my constituency. That is a normal thing for Ministries to do, and it could be described as a normal courtesy of parliamentary life.
Nothing of that sort happened in this case. I take no offence myself, but it is grossly offensive to the Council of the Isles of Scilly to be treated in this manner. Unless the Minister can apologise, not to me but to the Scillonian people and the Council, for the way in which they have been treated in this House, this subject may be raised in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Onslow. Amendments will be tabled, there will be a vote, and I hope that in due course this Bill will come back here to be debated further.
It is no part of my case that the Isles of Scilly, for some historical reason and by virtue of location, should be entitled for ever more to an endless dispensation from taxation which other people bear, but if the Minister decides to reverse a longstanding tradition he might at least have been expected to be well-armed in the Standing Committee with the correct facts.
The Minister's first contention—that there was no reason why the Isles of Scilly should be in any more beneficial position than the Isle of Wight or the Isle of Arran—sounded reasonable, but

is, in fact, thoroughly unsound. I do not intend to debate the merits of the Isle of Wight—it has no analogy at all to the present case—but I will use the analogy suggested in the Committee of the Isle of Arran.
As the Ministry of Transport knows very well—though it was before the Minister took office—as a result of lengthy discussions held with the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company, myself, the Ministry of Transport and many other Ministries, the Isles of Scilly are in a very special and unique situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has said, there is a British European Airways service to the Isles of Scilly, but the B.E.A. services between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly are wholly unsubsidised, whereas the air services to the Scottish islands are subsidised to the tune of up to £½ million a year.
The Minister should know, further, that freight rates by sea to the Scottish islands are subsidised. Generally speaking, the freight rate to the Scottish islands is no greater than the rate to the furthest point on the mainland, and this arrangement is set out very fully in publications of the Scottish Highlands Transport Board.
The Isles of Scilly cannot, therefore. be compared with the Scottish islands The steamship company is privately owned, it has to pay its way, and it has no subsidies of any kind at all between the mainland and St. Mary's. The result is that freight rates to the Isles of Scilly have an infinitely greater impact on the cost of living there than freight rates can possibly have, any time, on the Scottish islands. Petrol costs 7d. a gallon more in the Isles of Scilly, and it costs about £14 return to transport a vehicle from Penzance to St. Mary's, the main island. Freight rates to the outer islands of St. Agnes, St. Martin, Tresco and Bryher are one-third more than to St. Mary's. It is an utterly false analogy to compare the Isles of Scilly with the Isle of Arran in this way.
8.30 p.m.
On at least four of the five islands the roads were built entirely as a result of local labour and subscription by the islanders, and not a penny of public money was involved. Payment for the concrete was made by the islanders and by the Duchy of Cornwall. On St. Mary's


the roads were built mainly with public money but from individual contributions. Although the Council now receives a small rate support grant for upkeep of the roads, that has operated only recently and did not exist at the time when the roads were built.
Whether the yield will be commensurate with administrative costs is a matter for the Minister to decide. I think he will be landing his Department in potential legal entanglements of immense complexity. The Parliamentary Secretary estimated in Committee that there were approximately 200 vehicles on the Isles of Scilly. He was 100 per cent. wrong, for there are about 400. One might have expected that when introducing new taxation he would get the correct facts.
The yield is likely to be very small, for an important reason. Section 6(6) of the Vehicle (Excise) Act, 1962, exempts vehicles from road fund licence which are intended to be used on public roads only in passing from land in a person's occupation to other land in his occupation. More importantly, Section 24 defines a public road as,
a road which is repairable at public expense.
On the mainland it is the presumption of law that where a road is being maintained by the inhabitants it is a highway maintained at public expense, but in the Isles of Scilly the land is almost wholly owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, a Crown body established under its own management Acts, and nine-tenths of the roads in the Isles of Scilly may not rank as "public roads" at all.
I assure the Minister that the inhabitants of the Isles of Scilly are very persistent and independent-minded people. If they think they can get away without paying vehicle excise duty under the law as it exists, they certainly will.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If they follow the example set by the Minister, they can also do it illegally.

Mr. Nott: If the Minister persists in pushing this Clause through, we may invite the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to the Isles of Scilly. He would enjoy it no end, and perhaps he could instruct us on one or two of the avoidance technicalities which he has noted in London and elsewhere.
It appears that there will be an endless legal squabble as to whether or not the roads outside Hugh Town are public roads or not. This may continue for a long time.
On this matter there is a division of opinion in the islands. I do not claim that every person there is furious about the introduction of this taxation. Many who do not own motor vehicles are quite happy. It is normally the case when such taxation is imposed that those who own vehicles are angry and those who do not own vehicles are pleased because the number of motor vehicles may be reduced. Those who are not in the proud position of being motor vehicle owners with which they can ply their way around the island will have a rude shock, however, if the Bill goes through.
Placing an extra tax of £25 a year on a vehicle will have a substantial impact on the cost of living in the islands. Already many trades people, if confronted with an additional tax of this nature, will not be able to bear it and delivery of goods throughout the islands is likely to be affected.
The Minister has power to do as he wishes by this Clause, but it is monstrous that he should have introduced it in Committee while giving the hon. Members representing this area no chance on Second Reading of stating his constituents' views. The Minister did this without reference to the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which has statutory power to levy licences itself. Having made that mistake, the Ministry made no effort to get in touch with the Isles of Scilly to tell the Council what it had done. Nor did it get in touch with the hon. Member representing the Isles. It was left to him to get in touch with the Ministry and inform the Isles of Scilly what was going on.
I do not necessarily claim that the islands should be exempt for ever more. Nor do they do so. But the facts which the Parliamentary Secretary gave in Committee to support his case were in many cases erroneous. His analogies were untrue. The Ministry might have taken more trouble to present his case in the proper way and handle it in a manner more consistent with the way in which we normally conduct business in this House.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has referred to the merits of the case and the way in which it was handled. He complained that the Council of the Scilly Isles had not been informed I can only reply that, as he knows, the Council has since been to the Ministry, when the full apology to which it was entitled was made, quite properly. As far as I understand the situation, the Council accepted the apology. I also think that the hon. Gentleman's complaint is justified, and I apologise to him as well.
We have discussed the merits at great length, but it was right and proper that the hon. Gentleman, who was not a member of the Standing Committee, should seize this opportunity of making his point. The simple point is that no one likes paying taxes if he has not been previously paying them. Obviously, people in that area are bound to have strong feelings, and not merely those who live in the islands but the visitors and tightly-knit politically motivated communities which seem attracted by the islands—people of great eminence—also have their point of view to express on this, because it is a fundamental change.
It is largely an accident that the islanders have not paid this tax. Everyone else in the United Kingdom does. The reason they do not pay is that they have not been caught by the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962, which refers to counties and county borough councils, and the Council of the Scilly Isles is not a local authority. But this has been known for some time. Discussions have taken place in the past, when the possibility of changing the situation has been discussed. Of course, one does not expect the islanders to volunteer. Nor was it felt worth while to change the law to meet the point. But now, of course, we have a new situation.
We are introducing new legislation designed to deal with the whole question nationally and on a national basis. What we would be faced with doing now would be deliberately to exclude from that new legislation a section of the nation and, therefore, one has to ask, "Is there a case not for just ignoring this and letting it go on because it can be argued that it is not worth the trouble, but for positively taking a decision to exclude this community?" The amounts involved are

not vast. The figure is about 400 vehicles. In terms of cost, I understand that this is about half a clerk at £750 a year, with accommodation and so forth. The revenue is about £8,000 a year.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about an enforcement officer? Surely there must be one of those in the Scilly Isles?

Mr. Marsh: I am sure that my hon. Friend will use his Recesses to their customary value by checking up on the Isles of Scilly as well. But I can only say, as Minister of Transport, that if there is to be an enforcement officer he will be on someone else's Vote and not mine.
The amounts are not vast and nobody argues that they are. The question is whether or not the situation is so different there that we positively exclude the Isles of Scilly from the legislation.
What are the arguments? First, it is said that because it is an island its costs are higher, and that its costs are higher than those of some other islands. That argument must fail. We have a large number of off-shore islands, and inevitably the costs of transporting goods and freight to and from an island are clearly much higher than in the suburbs of London or in one of our large conurbations. That argument could not be used unless we were to say that all the offshore islands should be excluded from the Excise duty. Incidentally, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have irrefutable evidence that the Excise duty is £25 and not £35.
Then it is argued that there are special circumstances here because of the shipping and freight costs which are higher than those which normally apply to an off-shore island. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be a major change to start linking the obligation to pay tax to the amount of costs incurred. Some of the off-shore islands, because they are further away and more difficult to get to, have higher costs than others. Some parts of the country involve higher costs than other parts of the country.
One cannot use the first argument and say this is an island and that it therefore costs more money to transport goods there, because that argument would apply to all other off-shore islands. One could not use the second argument and say


that this is an island where the transport costs are higher than some other islands, because if one goes down that road one throws upon the whole country the choice to argue whether people should pay the full rate of tax or not. Nobody likes paying a tax that he has not paid before, but the simple fact is that we can find neither a justification nor a way of taking this one small group of the community and saying, "You alone shall not pay tax for a vehicle."
The argument was raised about the status of roads. What matters here is whether they are "public" roads. There are some roads in Hugh Town which are. We know they are because the council has told us they are. The other roads on St. Mary's are Duchy-owned and may or may not be "public". Their actual status is under discussion at present between the Council and the Duchy, but so long as there are some "public" roads in the United Kingdom upon which ordinary vehicles are travelling, it is difficult without rethinking the whole method of taxation to see a way not of just letting sleeping dogs lie but of consciously providing in this new legislation a means by which they and they alone should be excluded.
I finish as I started. The apology has been made, and it is unqualified. But the fact is that we are now introducing new legislation. We are having a national central licensing organisation, and if this Amendment were accepted we would have to say that there is something so unique about the Isles of Scilly that they and they alone must be excluded. I see no way of doing this unless we begin to consider the other off-shore islands and not only begin to exclude them but choose between them.

Mr. Nott: May I mention one point? The right hon. Gentleman appreciates, of course, that if it is only Hugh Town that has publicly-owned roads—this is just a small town in the middle of the islands—there will be an immense problem of deciding on which vehicles tax should be paid and on which it should not be paid. Only a tiny fraction of the vehicles use Hugh Town at all. Even under the present legislation, as long as the vehicles do not use the public roads in Hugh Town for, I think, more than

six hours a week, Excise duty is not payable on them. The problem will surely be immense.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will deal with another difficulty. Should not the poor Londoners who wish to take their cars to the Scilly Islands then have a rebate?

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend and I have been long agreed on the movement for home rule for London. It should be very viable. I have the distinction of probably being the only member of the present Government who has not been on holiday in the Isles of Scilly.
On the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, there are some roads which are clearly public roads, there are others which are in dispute, and there are many private roads, particularly in other islands. One is faced not with a clear choice of excluding or including islands, but of having to judge how much public road there is, what the freight costs are, and so on, which is not a practical proposition.
I recognise how strongly the islanders feel about this, and everybody in the House would feel exactly the same if they had to pay a tax which they had not hitherto had to pay. The islanders are the only people in the United Kingdom who do not pay Vehicle Excise Duty and in the new legislation we cannot see a sensible way of preserving that position.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The whole House will have been impressed by the forceful and penetrating way in which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has spoken on behalf of his constituents, a privilege which was denied to him in Committee. The Minister has made a generous apology to my hon. Friend and to the Scilly Islanders. It was good of the Minister to give it in such an open and clear way; it is appreciated.
On the other hand, the hon. Member for St. Ives and the Scilly islanders would have been glad to know how this mistake arose and what steps have been taken to make sure that it never happens again. It was an outrageous example of, perhaps, petty bureaucracy, which I hope we will never see again.
Even bearing in mind the arguments which the Minister has put forward, I


doubt whether it is possible to consider this proposal anything but a mean and miserly product of petty bureaucracy. The amount of revenue obtained will be very small, and, from what the Minister said, it seems certain that enforcement will be extremely expensive.
The Minister said that this was a tidying-up exercise, and that in bringing in a new system we have to make a positive decision whether the Scilly Islands should be excluded, but he has not explained how the special problems of the Scilly Isles in relation to public roads will be dealt with. It is crystal clear that if the islanders are difficult, and they insist that the law should be applied—and I understand from the Isles that counsel's opinion on the ownership of roads has already been obtained for a separate exercise—then the Government will have administrative problems which will require several inspectors, of the kind which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would like to see operating in London, going to the Scilly Islands to see how many vehicles travel over six miles of public roads in any one week.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has said how few roads are classified as public roads. The Minister has said that only a few roads are public roads. Under Section 6(6) of the 1962 Act exemption is given to vehicles intended to be used on public roads only in passing from land in a person's occupation to other land in that person's occupation and for distances not exceeding in the aggregate six miles in any calendar week. The definition of a public road is given in Section 24 of the Act as a road which is repairable at the public expense.
The point that my hon. Friend so ably touched on was that on some of the islands the Council of the Scilly Isles is voluntarily taking on the repair of these roads and maintaining them, although it would appear that in the law there is some doubt as to whether it should be responsible. Is the Minister to drive it into the position where it will stick to the letter of the law and say, "We shall not repair roads for which we have no legal obligation", and thereby exempt a very substantial percentage of the vehicles on the Scilly Isles?
We on this side of the House were appalled when we found out how little

research the Government have done into applying the law to the Scilly Isles. Despite all the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, who is always so active on behalf of his constituents, and the penetrating questions put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and other hon. Members in Committee, we do not know whether the Government will raise any money.
Moreover, we do not know just how many vehicles this will apply to, and we do not see how it can be applied unless there is an army of enforcement officers on the Scilly Isles. The Scilly Isles have enough to contend with, with the various visitors they have from parts of London, including Downing Street, and elsewhere, without having to put up with an army of enforcement officers.
There has been an oversight of a sort. This has been a unique historic privilege which has existed for some time, not to give general exemption to Scilly Islanders who want to take their cars to the mainland but to those who stay on the Islands and travel on the very few roads there. When there has been so much confusion and bungling over the issue, and when my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has tried so energetically to obtain clarification, we cannot leave the Amendment until the Government clearly indicate to whom this will be applied.
Is it to apply to all the vehicles, or only to some? Will the exemptions of Section 6(6) of the 1962 Act be applied? If they are to stay—and they are certainly inscribed in the Bill, how are the Government to determine those vehicles which will drive only six miles on the public highway in any week?

Mr. Marsh: The exemption applies only to vehicles that go from land in the user's occupation to other such land for less than six miles a week. A typical example is a farmer with a road running through his farm crossing the road. It is not just a question of travelling six miles on any non-public land.

Mr. Taylor: Absolutely, and we want to know how many of these vehicles are in use.
I got some details about the kind of vehicles in the Scilly Isles. I understand that there are 409 to be precise. The Minister said 400, but we shall not accuse


him of being too inaccurate. A substantial number of these are agricultural vehicles. There are 50 vans or Land Rovers which are used for agriculture. There is one large lorry which is used for agriculture. There are 90 tractors used for agriculture.

Mr. Marsh: This has nothing to do with whether they are tractors or agricultural vehicles. The point is whether they are crossing from land in the owners' use to other land also in their use. The only place in which this applies normally is a road running through a farm or field where one wants to cross the road. It does not matter whether the vehicle is agricultural or not. The point is which land one is going to and from.

Mr. Taylor: We do not expect the Minister to come here and lecture us on the law. We on this side of the House have gone into this very carefully. We tried to do this before discussing things with him. We are concerned about the extent to which he is aware of the situation in the Scilly Isles. It was crystal clear from our discussions in Committee that the Government had not done their homework on the Scilly Isles. We want to know the extent to which they have done it now.

Mr. Nott: The point that my hon. Friend is making also concerns Section 24—whether they are public highways. Hugh Town, which has the public highways, is smaller than the Palace of Westminster. All the public highways in the Scilly Isles do not cover an area greater than the size of the Palace of Westminster. All the rest are not public highways.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I was about to come to the question of public highways. This is a second part of the law which perhaps the Minister has examined in relation to the Isles of Scilly. A public highway is defined in the 1962 Act, as my hon. Friend so rightly said, as a road which is repairable at public expense. Can the Minister say what percentage of the roads in the Isles of Scilly are repairable at public expense? My earlier point was that in certain islands it appears that the Council accepts the liability to repair these roads, although, under the strict interpretation of the law, it might not be eligible to do this.
We want to know how many of the vehicles will be examined under Section 6 of the 1962 Act, what percentage of the roads are public roads under the definition in Section 24, and what percentage tage of the roads are being maintained by the Council of the Isles of Scilly at present, although there is no legal obligation on the Council to do so.
After all the confusion and bungling there have been on this important matter affecting a group of people whom my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has so ably represented in the House, we are at least entitled to factual answers, not just the Minister's opinions on these points. Surely in view of the long interval between the Committee stage and this stage, and of all the bungling we have had, we should at least get some factual answers before the Government insist on driving this mean and miserly product of bureaucracy through.

A mendment negatived.

Clause 3

INTERIM PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 23, at end insert:
'; and section 2(2) of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as if for the reference to section 1 of this Act there were substituted a reference to this section '.
This is a less controversial Amendment. Its effect is to ensure that the Minister shall have power to provide for the payment of compensation by regulations to local authority staff adversely affected by an order made under Clause 3 in the same way as at present he has power under Clause 2(2) to do in a case attributable to the making of an order under Clause 1—Transfer of functions to the Minister. I do not think there will be any criticism about this. This merely gives the Minister power to pay compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 5, in page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (5).

No. 6, in line 40, leave out ' sections 5 and 10 ' and insert ' section 5 '.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 7

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 6

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) Any unissued licence allocated to a motor dealer in pursuance of the foregoing section may at any time be surrendered in the prescribed manner to the Minister by the dealer or by any person to whom the licence has been transferred under regulations made in pursuance of subsection (2)(f) of that section.
The effect of the Amendment is to extend the right to surrender temporary licences allocated by the Minister to a motor dealer to persons to whom a motor dealer has transferred temporary licences in accordance with regulations made under Clause 6(2)(f). Under Clause 6(2)(f) a motor dealer's allocation of temporary licences may be transferred to another person if the dealer dies or becomes incapacitated——

Mr. John Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to read his speech a little more slowly? I am intensely interested in this Amendment and the hon. Gentleman is going too fast for me to keep up with him.

Mr. Carmichael: It is probably a question of accent.
I was saying that under Clause 6(2)(f) a motor dealer's allocation of temporary licences may be transferred to another person if the dealer dies or becomes incapacitated or bankrupt, or in other cases prescribed by regulations. Clearly, it is inequitable for the person to whom the temporary licences are transferred to be unable to surrender unissued temporary licences to the Minister if he so wishes. The Amendment gives the person inheriting or taking over the dealer's business the power and the right of surrender.

9.0 p.m.

Sir H. Harrison: While I respect the Minister for being honest with the House and making all the Amendments which appear on the Amendment Paper, in view of the enormous number of Amendments which were made to the Bill in Committee it is horrifying to have this further batch. I said on Second Reading that I thought

that the Bill had been hurriedly prepared. No doubt the Minister is correct to make these Amendments, but that there should be so many does not reflect well on him. This Report stage seems more like a Committee stage, and the House is left in a rather awkward position in that on Report we cannot debate matters in such detail as in Committee. I feel that this protest has to be made.

Mr. Carmichael: I understand the complaint of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). However, on Second Reading I said that this was a technical Bill. One of the good things about a Committee stage is that even our excellent civil servants and Ministers are able to learn from the wide experience of hon. Members. It would be rather unfortunate if we were not. That is the whole purpose of what some regard as our rather complicated procedure. While no one likes Amendments for the sake of Amendments, matters arise in general discussion, particularly with technical Bills like this, which inevitably provoke second thoughts. I do not know why we should otherwise go to the trouble of having a Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

SURRENDER OF LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 9, line 20, leave out from ' section 'to ' it ' in line 21.

No. 9, in line 22, leave out 'or that section '.

No. 10, in line 25 leave out ' or subsection (6) '.—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 9, line 30, leave out from beginning to ' to ' and insert:
' the further licence shall cease to be in force and he shall forthwith return it '.
The effect of the Amendment is to provide that if a person surrenders a temporary licence under Clause 8 any full-term licence received by such a person in pursuance of his application for the licence shall cease to be in force. The Amendment reproduces the earlier provision that the full-term licence shall forthwith be returned to the Minister.
It is possible that although a temporary licence has been surrendered, a full-term licence will still be received by the applicant—for instance, if something happens in the period between sending away for his new licence and his having surrendered the temporary licence. For instance, he might change his mind about wanting to licence the vehicle, or he may have had a serious accident and not want to licence the vehicle which has been written off, or he may attempt to be fraudulent by applying for a licence and then saying that he has changed his mind so that if the letters crossed he would have a full-term licence. The Amendment is to make it clear that in those circumstances the full-term licence would not be valid if he had received back his money for the temporary licence which he had asked to be terminated.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 12, in page 9, line 40, at end add:
(5) Subsection (4) of this section shall have effect, during any period when section 9 of the Act of 1962 is in force, with the substitution of references to that section for references to this section and with the omission of paragraph (b) and the words from 'or if to ' application ' in the second place where it occurs.—[Mr. Carmichael]

Clause 10

CONTINUOUS LIAIBILITY FOR VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move,
That Clause 10 be divided into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (5) and the second of subsections (61 to (8).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Motion we can also discuss Amendments Nos. 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 27, 28 and 30.

Mr. Carmichael: Because of the agreement in Standing Committee the Clause has become very long, and the Motion proposes to split the Clause into two separate Clauses, the first comprising subsections (1) to (5), and the second subsections (6) to (8). The Amendments are consequential upon this.

Question put and agreed to

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 10, line 9, after ' this insert ' and the following '.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in line 11 at end insert—
'. whether or not it is still a mechanically propelled vehicle '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can also discuss the Amendment to Amendment No. 14. in line 1, leave out ' whether or not ' and insert 'if, plus Amendments 18, 21 to 26, 29, 43, 44 and 47.

Mr. Carmichael: These Amendments are taken together because corporately they make provision for the position of non-mechanically propelled vehicles under continuous liability. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on the debate on Clause 10 at the Fourth Sitting of the Committee. As a result it has been decided to make special provision for such vehicles.
The hon. Member asked about the provision under continuous liability of vehicles derelict, and perhaps unable to move or be propelled, or those which were laid up in a barn throughout a conversion period, and thus not subject to the reminders from the computers following the introduction of continuous liability. An analogy can be drawn between these vehicles and vehicles laid up for which notification of laying-up can be given under Clause 10(2)(b).
For some non-mechanically propelled vehicles a notification of laying-up would not be appropriate, for example if a vehicle were being used on the road as a trailer. This vehicle under Clause 10(1) would be subject to continuous liability because it was originally, that is when it was mechanically propelled and used on the road, chargeable for Excise duty. Similarly, a derelict vehicle kept by the side of the road would be subject to continuous liability under the Bill as at present drafted. It has been decided that exemptions from liability should be possible for vehicles which ceased to be mechanically propelled. These vehicles have not been subjected to excise in the past and it seems right to provide exemptions for them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does that mean that derelicts which have their wheels removed will not be liable for a licence?

Mr. Carmichael: This is the point. There are problems, if the hon. Member would wait and see. This is a rather complicated definition of what is a non-mechanically propelled vehicle. It is proposed to use the analogy of laying up and to provide that a keeper should be able to notify the Minister that his vehicle has become non-mechanically propelled. Such a notification will be made in accordance with regulations. If a vehicle for which a notification of not being mechanically propelled has been given becomes mechanically propelled again, the keeper will be under the obligation to revoke the notification and the vehicle will become subject to liability again.
There is a national need, not least for the police in detecting stolen vehicles, for a complete record to be maintained of all mechanically propelled vehicles. Deliberate failure to make this revocation by some one who puts a vehicle on the road and has made it mechanically propelled would be an offence. If a vehicle notified as not being mechanically propelled is found to be mechanically propelled, then unless it is also covered by a notification of laying up, the exemption of the current keeper from liability will be forfeited back to the date of original notification or the later date of acquisition of the vehicle where in the meantime there has been a change of keeper.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how this is in any way a concession? Surely if we did not have these new arrangements for giving notification of a vehicle becoming non-propelled, people could have obtained the same exemption by indicating that they would not use their vehicle.

Mr. Carmichael: Once the computer is installed, if a normal mechanically propelled vehicle were involved and if in the circumstances discussed in Committee, someone goes abroad or becomes ill and the vehicle is put away, we would ask the central office annually whether the vehicle was still to be used on the road. With a non-mechanically propelled vehicle, once we had notification that it was not mechanically propelled this would be the end of the matter until we received word that the person had put the vehicle back into service again. It is not a simple matter to define a non-mechanically propelled vehicle.
If a vehicle notified as being non-mechanically propelled is found to be mechanically propelled, the new process of continuous liability will operate. Regulations will be made covering various details of notification that it is not mechanically propelled in a manner analogous to notification in connection with laying up. The Minister will be able to deem a notification of not being mechanically propelled to have been given, but it is envisaged for the convenience of the public that notification will be of indefinite duration rather than the maximum 12 months' period of a notification of laying up. We intend that at the time continuous liability is introduced, which we expect to be 1975, there will be a large publicity campaign to make keepers of vehicles which have ceased to be mechanically propelled aware of their duty to notify that fact to the Minister, and vehicles for which a notification has been given will be brought on to the record and exempted from duty.

Mr. Heseltine: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify the point which he is making? As I understand it, the owner of any vehicle for which a licence has been held since 1962 but which subsequently may have become derelict will have to register the fact that the vehicle is derelict to avoid the obligation of continuous licensing.

Mr. Carmichael: This would be a matter for the regulations. They are unlikely to go back as far as 1962. They may, but by 1975 a large number of vehicles will have been written off and a continuous record will hardly prove——

Mr. Heseltine: I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to be saying that when this system comes in there will be a considerable period of perhaps five or six years previous to the introduction——

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Report is a little more formal than Committee. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Are derelictions which occurred during the previous period now to be accounted for by the owner of the vehicle?

Mr. Carmichael: This will be covered in regulations. There will, of course, be a large publicity campaign to make keepers of motor vehicles which cease to be mechanically propelled aware of their duty to notify——

Dr. Winstanley: What does the Minister mean by "keeper"?

Mr. Carmichael: This was discussed upstairs on a previous Clause.
The keeper is the person registered as the owner of the vehicle, the person who is responsible for it. There has frequently been the problem of the difference between the keeper and the owner. In the Bill we are substituting "registered keeper" for "registered owner". There is frequently a problem about who owns the vehicle as distinct from the person who is in charge of it—for example, in the case of vehicles owned by hire-purchase firms. In this instance, we mean the person who has the log book and is the keeper of the vehicle.
The short period of transition will be covered by regulations, and there will be publicity to make people aware of the need to notify whether a vehicle is not mechanically propelled. In this way, keepers of vehicles which are derelict at the time when continuous liability is introduced should not suffer from the continuous liability provision. They will be given every opportunity to notify the state of their vehicle at the time the continuous liability becomes operative.

Mr. Speaker: The House may, perhaps, be reminded that with the Amendment we are taking also Amendments Nos. 18, 21 to 26, 29, 43, 44, 47 and the Amendment to the Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If I may move the Amendment to the Government's Amendment——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not selected it to be moved. It can be discussed with the Government Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may discuss the meat of what we hoped to say if the Amendment had been selected.
The Government Amendment creates a nonsensical situation, as I wish briefly to

explain. In Committee, I put forward propositions to the Minister about whether someone who had a car in, say, 1963 or 1964 which was just able to struggle along the road but thereafter ceased to be able to do so and was used, perhaps. in a remote croft in the Highlands, not for driving along the road, but possibly for keeping hens or the like, would be liable, when the Bill became law, for the duty of £25 a year unless he took the trouble of writing a letter to the Government office to say that the vehicle would not be used on a road. From what the Minister has said, and from the Government's Amendment, it appears that that will be the case.
With the Government Amendment, sub section (1) of the Clause will read as follows:
Subject to the provisions of this and the following section, a person who for any period keeps a vehicle in respect of which duty under the Act of 1962 has at any time become chargeable shall, whether or not it is still a mechanically propelled vehicle, be liable to pay duty".
This will be retrospective. If the sin of omission is discovered in 1990, that person will be liable to pay £25 at least for every year between the date that it had to be licensed to 1990. This is nonsensical.
We have co-operated with the Government whenever they have tried to catch deliberate evaders. We can therefore expect some help from them when we try to stop them making idiots of themselves with a proposal which will be nonsense in law and practice. The Government have defended themselves by saying——

Mr. Manuel: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it will not be nonsense once the Bill becomes law? The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that these other cases, which the hon. Member, with his usual over-statement, is trying to highlight, will be dealt with by regulations. Recognising that, after the Bill becomes law, they will receive automatically not just one notice but two if they do not renew their licences, would not the hon. Gentleman think that that is a big enough safeguard, without bringing in hen houses and old buses and things lying on the scrap heap?

Mr. Taylor: I have been trying to be brief, but when I tried throughout the


Committee to do so I was often interrupted by having to explain the facts of life to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshirs (Mr. Manuel), and it looks as though I shall have to do so again.
The Minister himself explained that, when the Regulations are brought in, there will be a date, perhaps 1962, perhaps 1964 or 1965. Whatever the operative date, any car which became derelict and was used in the hon. Member's constituency or anywhere else for keeping turkeys or hens would be liable to taxation for all time until and unless the owner of the wreck sent a note to the Ministry.
The Government have talked about their publicity campaign, which will probably consist of some announcements on radio current affairs programmes, occasional newspaper advertisements, perhaps something on television and even an announcement in the House. But, with so many weighty affairs occupying people's minds, particularly in agriculture, some might not know of this campaign and their obligations and might take no action.
In these circumstances, the Amendment will require people to pay road fund licence for a car which cannot go, which has not been on the road for many years and which will never go on the road again. The Government should at least say what a non-mechanically propelled vehicle is, in their opinion. Where will we stop? If someone has just the body work in the back of a barn, or a vehicle with only two wheels, or one with no engine, will all these be covered by that term? The Government may say that they will apply this sensibly, but how many times have we heard this, only to see them apply the full rigours of the law totally unreasonably? We are not here to pass law which is nonsense, as this will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked about "a keeper" under Amendment No. 22. What is meant by the words at the end of the Amendment:
…and in any other case the earlier notice shall be deemed not to have been given"?
What case is he thinking of?
As far as I can see what this means is that if someone has a vehicle which does not work and cannot go, whose engine does not operate, and he sells it for scrap to someone else who, three, four or five years later, perhaps for stock-car racing, but for whatever purpose, makes it again a vehicle which can go, he will be deemed liable to pay tax on that vehicle not just from the time it was made to go again but as from the time he took over ownership of that vehicle. I wonder whether the Minister could say exactly what new subsection (2)(b) means, and, in particular, what is meant by the words
and in any other case the earlier notice shall be deemed not to have been given.
Surely the simple, sensible way is to do as we suggest, and that is to put in the word "if" into Amendment No. 14. People should be liable to pay tax on a vehicle which can go, which has engines which work, which has four wheels which turn.
We have heard from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), with his usual eloquence, talk about vehicles which can and do go on the roads without tax being paid on them, so it seems utter nonsense that the Government should be bringing in an Amendment which could in certain circumstances enable people to be charged tax over a period of years for vehicles which do not go, which have engines which do not work, and which have wheels which do not turn. We are in danger of making ourselves look nonsensical, and I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider these words and perhaps change them in another place.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There is always another side to a picture. There is the picture hanging on the wall, which can be seen, but it has another side and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not looked at that. I very strongly support the Government on this Amendment.
There are, as the hon. Member says, a number of people who deliberately evade, and have for years deliberately evaded, the payment of tax. There are people who, rather than be in danger of being caught up with, Mr. Speaker, deliberately leave their vehicles to become derelict. Of course, they do not


leave them outside their own houses very often. They leave they outside your house, or they would if they could, or the Minister's house—anybody's house but their own. There they stay for years on end. The engines begin to fall out, the wheels are taken off. They become incapable of movement. If people have not paid tax on those vehicles—and the object of the exercise of leaving them to become derelict is to evade tax—why should they not be chased up?
I had an old car which became dere-list, but I did not leave it on the highway. I notified the licensing authority and said that I wanted to get rid of it. I paid £1 and it was taken to a dump and properly done away with. There is no question of the tax I paid being paid back, because I paid up to the date when I notified the authority. I have a record of it, that two or three years ago, whenever it was, I notified the licensing authority that the car had become derelict and that it had ceased to be a moving vehicle.
The hon. Member mentioned derelicts being left on a farm. I have had at least six cases of children having their faces hurt because they played with a derelict vehicle; they played with the petrol in the tank, dropping matches in. It was wrong of them, no doubt, but boys will be boys. They should not have done it, but they had their faces very severely damaged. It is wicked to leave a vehicle like that. We have this problem in London, and I have no doubt that it exists in Glasgow and elsewhere. People deliberately leave their unwanted cars in side streets and this causes congestion. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is a bachelor. If he were married, with children, he would certainly notify the authorities and claim an allowance.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is not a mechanically propelled vehicle. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: It is an excellent analogy, Mr. Speaker.
A person who is entitled to tax relief is quick to inform the Inland Revenue of the facts. A person who owns a

vehicle which is no longer a runner need only notify the appropriate authority and his road tax liability will cease. I complain about people who do not notify the authorities but simply dump their derelict cars outside people's houses. I wish that eventually, perhaps two or three years later, when those unwanted cars are removed the owners were presented with road tax bills backdated to the time when the vehicles were dumped.

Mr. Carmichael: With the permission of the House, I will answer some of the points that have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is correct in saying that if a car is taken off the road in the manner he described the appropriate authority should be informed and the log book surrendered. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) spoke in pleasant terms about derelict vehicles. He said that it was nice to see chickens running in and out of them as they rusted away on farming land. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North was right to point out the other side of the coin—vehicles left in streets or abandoned where they cause hazards, particularly to children, and especially if petrol explodes in tanks, causing children to be burned.
It is difficult to define "vehicle" and "mechanically propelled" in law. If definitions were embodied in the Statute they would raise more problems than they would solve. For this reason we do not define these two concepts, although they are vital since if a vehicle ceases to be a vehicle it is not subject to duty. Something that looks like a vehicle might not be a vehicle—for example, if its wheels have been removed.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: What advice would the Minister give the general public on this matter? If a person has a wreck in his possession or on his land, how can he determine whether it is a vehicle under the law, and what advice can he get?

Mr. Carmichael: If it is not a mechanically propelled vehicle the necessary notification can be given and exemption from duty is provided. It is likely in the early days of the provisions that the courts will be asked to make practical pronouncements in individual tests cases. In


the past the courts have made judgments on these matters and gradually a body of case law has been established. This will occur in this case, and this will give us and the courts guidance on defining these matters.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the Minister aware that we should know what we intend the courts to do rather than leave it to them to discover how the law should be interpreted?

Mr. Carmichael: There are many gradations in this matter. One must per haps decide whether or not a lump of metal is a vehicle and whether or not it is mechanically propelled. It is difficult to put this into words.
The keeper of a derelict vehicle may escape liability in three main ways. A notice of non-mechanical propulsion can be given—this is obviously the safest way. Again, if the vehicle is so derelict that it can no longer be said to be a vehicle—if it is just a piece of scrap iron lying in a field, as we so often see—it is no longer a vehicle. Or the Minister may deem a notice to have been given. This procedure would cover the very difficult case. Under the legislation the Minister would be the only person who could institute proceedings; so the matter is in his hands. Again, if someone ceases after a time to look after a vehicle, he is no longer the keeper of the vehicle.
The broad effect relates to the non-mechanically propelled vehicle which cannot readily be made mechanically propelled. There is such a wide scope, such a gradation from the vehicle which is a total wreck, and the vehicle which, though not mechanically propelled, can, with very little effort, be made mechanically propelled. Therefore, in order to safeguard the whole question of continuous liability, I believe that our Amendments, which we thought met the proposals raised in the Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Cathcart, should be accepted.

Mr. Heseltine: The give away to the problems the Government now face is this talk of a substantial publicity campaign which will be necessary to try to draw the attention of the public to the scheme when it comes into being. At no time during Second Reading or in Committee was there any talk of a substantial

publicity campaign. I defy the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us where in the original discussions there were references to an allocation for publicity. I do not know of any. I believe that this idea has been put in to answer the difficulties which have been drawn to the Government's attention.
The whole question of derelicts arises from a need to establish a very tidy system in order to make the computer system work. Tonight we have exposed completely the real difficulties and hardships facing ordinary people in trying to comprehend what is going on. I was appalled to hear the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that this House should give up the attempt to legislate clearly and concisely and should leave it to the law courts to find a satisfactory definition of a mechanically-propelled vehicle. It is axiomatic that it is our job so to define legislation that the job of interpretation is made easy for the courts. To leave definition, as is suggested, to the courts is not a satisfactory way of making good law.
The more we probe, the more anxious we are made by the answers we get. I want to put what I believe to be a constructive suggestion. I see no reason why it should be necessary for a further notice to be given of a derelict's return to the roads. All that is necessary is for the application form for a Road Fund licence to have on it a small box requiring ticking if the applicant has reason to believe that the vehicle had been on the roads in the past. The computer processing staff would then immediately be alerted to the fact that somewhere in the records in the computer at some date the vehicle had been registered. There would then be no need to have a special system of forms to bring a vehicle back on the road from the state of dereliction which it has reached.
The confusion surrounding the position of derelicts is evident when one thinks of someone buying a farm and finding a derelict vehicle. He is not aware, despite the publicity campaign that may have been waged by the Government, that there is need for special forms to be filled in to bring that vehicle back on the road. He renovates it at his expense and in his own time and brings it back on the roads, having obtained a licence to do so. He would find himself guilty under the secondary


procedure, and a fine of £50 could be imposed because in applying for the licence he did not draw attention to the fact that the vehicle had been derelict.
Why is it not possible to refer to the owner of the vehicle if "the owner" is meant? Why use the word "keeper"? A broken-down jalopy on a farm may have been dumped. The fact that it has been dumped by an owner means that liability for that car remains with the owner. The farmer may want to renovate it, and he would assume that it belonged to him or to the previous owner of the farm. He would bring it back on to the roads and the liability rests with the owner.

Mr. Manuel: Is not "keeper" a safer word? Many cars are bought on hire purchase. Finance houses are the owners because they advance the money and collect the contributions. The man in the process of paying for the car is the keeper. The person who may leave the car in a derelict state is far removed from the actual driving of the car.

Mr. Heseltine: That is a different set of circumstances because under the hire-purchase arrangements the car would be virtually new. The problem we are discussing is that of a derelict.
In Amendment No. 22, which is one of the group of Amendments we are discussing, there is the proposition that the keeper shall be liable if he "knowingly fails" to give notice. I cannot understand the purpose of the words "knowingly fails". I thought that if one were guilty of a breach of law it was one's job to be aware of the law. By the drafting of this Amendment one would be able to say, "I did not know what the law was."
We have not had an answer to the case in which a person owns a derelict, brings it back on to the roads and fails to give notice and is then guilty of an offence. By failure to give notice he invalidates the original notice creating the derelict. He is, of course, liable for the back duty, which would become due because the original notice had failed, and, therefore, the exemption excluding the liability had also failed.
It is possible that a previous owner could have given the first notice and, therefore, the exemption of the earlier

owner could also have failed. The earlier owner or keeper who believed that he gave the correct notice, which was invalidated by the present owner, could find himself liable for duty. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point and will let me know whether this danger exists.
I hope that we can persuade the Government to accept that they should look again at the Clause. We are not against the Clause or the Amendments in principle, but we believe—and the fact that Amendments of this complexity have had to be introduced on Report indicates that we were right—that wide areas of difficulty and doubt still exist. The Government should take the opportunity in another place to tidy up the matter still further.

Amendment agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 13, at end insert:
' unless he has not used or kept the vehicle on a public road during that period '.
The principle involved in this Amendment was well ventilated in Committee and I shall not go into it in detail. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what consideration he has given, since the Committee, to the hard cases we discussed. He said in Committee that hard cases make bad law, and that is understandable. How does he intend to deal with the hard cases which he referred to and which, as the Clause stands, would be liable and continuously liable to motor taxation?
A specific case raised in Committee was that of someone who takes out a licence for a period and then goes abroad indefinitely. Reminders come in from time to time, perhaps over a period of a year, but to no effect unless there is someone responsible or able to take action. In cases like that, or perhaps of cases of change of address, what is to be the situation?
Is someone who is moving with his car under an obligation to advise the Ministry so that it can change the records accordingly? What about the person who, through no fault of his own, but through circumstances like those referred to in Committee, fails to pay duty but does not use the car anyway and clearly could not


have been in a position to do so? Is there to be flexibility so as to give protection for those in special circumstances?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), in his usual reasonable way, asks a number of questions without challenging the basic principle of the Clause because, as he rightly says, we had a long discussion in Committee on this matter.
If the Amendment were made, the position would be exactly the same as now. I think that hon. Members on both sides are anxious to do as much as we can to take the tax dodger off the back of the ordinary motorist. So we are really not discussing the merits of the Amendment, because it would achieve that which neither side wants.
The hon. Gentleman raised the problem of the cases of hardship, however. We have gone into this in some detail. Clause 10(7) says:
The Minister may by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section including, without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this subsection, provision …
(e) for deeming notice to have been given in relation to a vehicle in respect of any period if in the circumstances of any particular case the Minister considers it reasonable to do so.
This is a very wide power. If we add to it the power for deemed notifications of non-mechanical propulsion we have gone as far as we can to meet cases of hardship which will arise from time to time, without making exceptions to the principle of continuous liability if it is to be a proper tool of enforcement, which we all want it to be. There is no disagreement between us about this provision. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is in the provision I have quoted, which gives me power to meet the point he raised.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 10, line 14, leave out 'following provisions of this ' and insert:
' provisions of this and the following '.

No. 17, in line 21, leave out ' subsection (7) of this ' and insert ' the following '.

No. 18, inline 23, at end insert:
(c) for any period when the vehicle is not a mechanically propelled vehicle and a

notice stating that it has ceased to be such a vehicle has, in accordance with regulations under the following section, been given to the Minister and not revoked in pursuance of subsection (2) of that section.

No. 19, in page 12, line 3, leave out ' provisions of this '.

No. 20, in line 5, leave out ' this ' and insert ' that '.

No. 21, in line 6, leave out 'the contrary is shown ' and insert:
' it is shown to have been a mechanically propelled vehicle of some other class or description during that period '.
No. 22, in line 9, at end insert:
(2) When a vehicle in respect of which a notice has been given in pursuance of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the foregoing section becomes a mechanically propelled vehicle, its keeper for the time being shall forthwith give to the Minister a further notice revoking the earlier notice; and where a person required to give such a further notice does not do so, then—

(a) if he knowingly fails to give it he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act; and
(b) in a case where he became the keeper of the vehicle after the earlier notice was given it shall be deemed to have been revoked on the date when he became the keeper of the vehicle, and in any other case the earlier notice shall be deemed not to have been given.

No. 23, in line 11, leave out 'of subsection (2) of this section ' and insert:
' or (c) of subsection (2) of the foregoing section or the foregoing subsection '.
No. 24, in line 15, leave out from ' of to ' and ' in line 16 and insert:
' and the particulars to be included in a notice under those provisions, the manner of giving such a notice '.
No. 25, in line 18, after 'notice' insert:
' under the said paragraph (b) '.
No. 26, in line 22, after ' notice ', insert:
' under the said paragraph (b) '.

No. 27, in line 31, leave out ' this ' and insert ' the foregoing '.

No. 28, in line 32, leave out ' that section ' and insert ' the said section 12 '.

No. 29, in line 36, leave out '(b) of this ' and insert:
' (b) or (c) of the foregoing '.

No. 30, in line 36, leave out second ' this ' and insert ' that '.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 11

ALTERATION OF PROVISIONS AS TO PHYSICAL FITNESS OF DRIVERS

Dr. Winstanley: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 13, line 29, at end insert:
Provided that in any conditions prescribed with reference to epilepsy ' sleep ' shall be defined so as to include a period of five minutes on awakening.

This Amendment is designed to get some information from the Minister about his intentions concerning regulations under this Clause and about what will or will not be possible under such regulations. My attention was drawn to the need for this Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has had some correspondence with the Ministry about a constituent who is affected by this condition.

Clause 11(3) says:
The licensing authority shall not… refuse to grant a licence… (6)… if the applicant satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed with a view to authorising the grant of a licence to a person in whose case the disability is appropriately controlled.

In the case of epilepsy the intention is that the Minister shall be advised by a panel of medical experts as to the circumstances in which the condition should be regarded as satisfactory from the point of view of granting a licence.

During the course of correspondence relating to this case with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, the Parliamentary Secretary wrote in the following terms, which show something of the Department's intentions with regard to the regulations:
Our intentions, which are based on broad recommendations by a panel of eminent medical consultants, are that to qualify for consideration for the grant of a driving licence a person must have been free from epileptic attack for three years, with or without treatment. The only exception envisaged is that of the person who has attacks only during sleep at night.

In general terms that is satisfactory and is a substantial improvement on the previous position. No medical man would wish to do anything to enable people to drive on the roads if they are not safe to drive. Certainly, where it is considered that there is no risk whatsoever of a person having a fit, it is reasonable for that person to have a

licence, and this is provided for in what the hon. Gentleman said in his letter.

There is this category of persons who only have attacks during sleep, and it is right to assume, as the Minister does, that this kind of person can be regarded as safe as any other person—in so far as anybody is safe—to drive on the roads. But there is this unusual and small category who tend to suffer from petit mal—minor epilepsy which is a small transient attack without convulsions, which takes place only on awakening.

There are not many of these cases, but I have come across one or two professionally, and there is this particular case about whom my hon. Friend was in correspondence with the Department. This is a case where the person has never had an attack except on awakening, and it would seem reasonable to regard an attack which takes place on awakening as taking place in sleep. The letter continues:
The only exception envisaged is that of the person who has attacks only during sleep at night.

This is the point of the Amendment. The letter adds:
On this basis a person who has attacks on waking would have to be free from such attacks for three years, with or without treatment, if he is to be considered for the grant of a driving licence.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to reconsider this if the panel of eminent medical consultants recommends that this period should be regarded as sleep. The people with whom I am concerned do not have attacks during sleep, but immediately on wakening, not always but sometimes, and never at any other time. I hope that this could be provided for in the regulations.

Mr. Carmichael: I am most grateful to the hon. Member and to his hon. Friend for putting down the Amendment. There has been considerable interest in this much more civilised attitude to epilepsy and many hon. Members have received letters from their constituencies about it. The third paragraph of the letter sent to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary perhaps states the case rather better:
Clearly, when we get to the stage of drafting regulations—if Parliament approves our main legislative proposals—we shall need to ask the medical authorities for detailed


advice, particularly in relation to borderline cases such as your constituent's, so that there will be no doubt where the line is drawn.
Obviously, we will consult medical opinion, as we have done all along, and now that this specific type of petit mal has been brought forward medical opinion will be more aware of it than previously.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be desirable for the Minister's powers to make regulations to be fetered in the way suggested, in spit of all we want to do. I am sorry not to be more helpful, but I think that he will agree from the correspondence and from the discussions that our desire is to be as liberal as possible commensurate with the obligation to look after the safety both of epileptic and of other road users. The spirit is willing, and if medical opinion is such as to give us confidence in dealing with the type of illness which has been raised in the Amendment, we shall be pleased to meet do so.

Dr. Winstanley: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assurance that he will take note of professional advice if the advice is in this form. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 14, line 25 leave out ' the period of seven days beginning ' and insert:
' the period of seven days beginning ' ' a period specified in the notice which shall not be less than seven nor more than thirty days and shall begin '.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to consider Amendment No. 33, in page 14, line 25, leave out ' seven ' and insert ' thirty '.

Mr. Carmichael: In Committee, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) suggested that in Clause 11, which substitutes the new Section 100, the period following the service of a notice of revocation of a driving licence after which revocation becomes effective should be extended from 7 days to a maximum of 30 days. The hon. Member felt that the seven-day limit might cause hardship where a licence-holder needed to have his vehicle adapted to enable him to continue to drive. We have looked at the provision in the light

of the hon. Gentleman's comments and agree that there is room for flexibility——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Concannon.]

VEHICLE AND DRIVING LICENCES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: The Amendment provides that the periods to be specified by the licensing authority in the notice of revocation be not less than seven days nor more than 30 days. This meets the point made by the hon. Member for Tavistock, and will enable the licensing authority to deal with each case on its merits.
I hope that the House will accept this sensible and sympathetic Amendment.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am most grateful to the Minister. He is right to say that this is an adjustment made as the result of a suggestion we made in Committee, and I am delighted that he has felt able to help us over this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

ALTERATION OF PROVISIONS AS TO GRANT AND DURATION ETC. OF LICENCES

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 34, with which I suggest we take Government Amendments No. 37 and 40.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 17, line 22, leave out from ' person ' to second ' the ' in line 24 and insert:
' is required to be endorsed in pursuance of any enactment or was granted in error or with an error or omission in the particulars specified in the licence or required to be so endorsed on it '.
This group of Amendments, which is largely technical, is concerned with the recovery of driving licences where the


holder has been convicted of an offence and the court has ordered his driving licence to be endorsed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is Amendment No. 35, with which I suggest we take Government Amendment No. 36.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 17, line 33, leave out ' together ' and insert:
' and in the case of a provisional licence as respects which the prescribed conditions are satisfied '.
The effect of the Amendment is to narrow the Minister's powers in the new Section 102(3). Instead of providing that where a notification is being made of a change in a licence holder's name or address all licence holders must state date of birth and sex, only provisional licence holders must do so, and only in prescribed circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 36, in page 17, line 34, leave out from ' birth ' to end of line 36.

No. 37, in page 17, line 43, leave out from ' error ' to end of line 11 on page 18 and insert:
' or omission appearing to the authority to be attributable to that person's fault or in consequence of a current disqualification; and
(b) may in such an excepted case which does not involve a current disqualification, grant to that person free of charge a new licence for the period for which the surrendered licence was granted; and where the holder of a licence surrenders it to the licensing authority with a view to exchanging it for a new licence and applies for the new licence in pursuance of the last foregoing section and pays the prescribed fee, the authority shall grant him the new licence to continue in force only for the remainder of the period for which the surrendered licence was granted '.—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Clause 14

OTHER AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO DRIVERS ETC.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 38, with which I suggest we take Government Amendment No. 39.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 19, line 14, after ' authority ', insert:

' or such a licence issued to him has been revoked or surrendered in pursuance of section 102 of this Act '.
When a licence is revoked under the new Section 102(2), for example, because it has been granted with an error or omission in its particulars, or is surrendered under Section 102(3) when a person notifies a change of name or address, the licensing authority will grant a new and corrected licence under Section 102(4) unless the licence holder has been disqualified.
In these circumstances, as communication with the central office by the public can only be by post, there will inevitably be a number of days when the licence holder will not possess a licence giving authority to drive. It is, therefore, fair to allow the licence holder to continue to drive any vehicle which he is entitled to drive while without his licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 39, in page 19, line 18, at end insert:
' but the benefit of the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not extend beyond the date when a licence is issued in pursuance of the application mentioned in paragraph (b) above or, as the case may be, in pursuance of subsection (4) of the said section 102 in consequence of the revocation or surrender so mentioned nor (in a case where a licence is not in fact so issued) beyond the expiration of the period for which it fell to be issued '.
No. 40, in page 19, line 34, at end insert:
(3) In section 7(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1962 (under which a court must in certain circumstances require a driving licence to be produced for endorsement) after the words ' as required ' there shall be inserted the words ' then, unless he satisfies the court that he has applied for a new licence and has not received it '.—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 19, line 39, after ' class) ', insert:
and in section 19(7) of that Act (which enables such a licence to be granted to a person who has held a corresponding Northern Ireland licence during that period) '.
The purpose of the Amendment is to reduce from 10 to 5 years the similar entitlement, provided under Section 19(7) of the Road Safety Act, 1967, to holders of the appropriate Northern Ireland licences and thus to keep both entitlements in line.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

COPIES OF TEST CERTIFICATES

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 21, line 10, at end add:
(2) Regulations under subsection (9) of section 14 of the Road Safety Act 1967 (which enables regulations to provide that licences under the Act of 1962 shall not be granted for goods vehicles to which subsection (2) or subsection (3) of that section applies unless evidence is produced that test certificates are in force for the vehicles or that they comply with the relevant type approval requirements) may be made so as to apply to such classes only of those vehicles as may be specified in the regulations.
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable regulations to be made progessively for particular classes of goods vehicle providing that no Excise licence can be issued without the production of a valid test certificate and eventually a type approval certificate.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

INSTITUTION AND CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 26, line 190, after ' 6', insert '11(2)'.— [Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 24

INSTITUTION AND CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 27, line 30, after '6', insert '11(2)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 26

ALTERATION OF PENALTIES AND OFFENCES AND THE APPLICATION OF SUMS UNDER 1962 c. 13 ss. 17, 18 AND 21 ETC.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 29, line 29, leave out from ' years "' to end of line 33 and insert:
(2) The said section 17(1) and (2) shall have effect subject to the following further amendments, that is to say—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) for the word ' book ' there shall be substituted the word ' document ';

(b) in subsection (2)(a) (which penalises a false declaration in connection with an application for a licence under the Act of 1962 for a vehicle) the reference to such an application shall include a reference to an application for an allocation in pursuance of section 6 or section 18 of this Act; and
(c) in subsection (2)(b) (which penalises the furnishing of false particulars in connection with a change of registration of a vehicle) the reference to the Act of 1962 shall be construed as including a reference to this Act and for the words ' in connection with a change of registration ', there shall be substituted the words ' relating to, or to the keeper '.

The Amendment extends the offences in Section 17(2) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962, the penalty for which, under Clause 26(1) as provided in the Bill, will be a maximum fine of £200 on summary conviction or, on indictment, imprisonment for up to two years. The offences are committed by making a false application for a vehicle licence or knowingly furnishing false particulars about a vehicle or about its keeper. The change in penalty in the Bill from a maximum fine of £50 or six months' imprisonment to £200 brings the provisions in line with recent statutory precedents—for example, Section 83 of the Transport Act, 1968.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27

DEFENCE TO CHARGE OF USING OR KEEPING VEHICLE WHERE NEW LICENCE PENDING

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 30, line 41, leave out "fourteen" and insert "thirty".
The purpose of the Amendment is to extend from 14 days to 30 days the period within which a motorist is entitled to claim that he should not be prosecuted for not having renewed his licence. There is at the moment a 14-day period of grace, and if a motorist has not renewed his licence it is a sufficient defence against the charge of using an unlicensed vehicle for that fourteen days.
It would seem equitable that the 14-day period, which has not given any great cause for complaint in the past, should be allowed to remain. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for writing to me since the Standing Committee proceedings and explaining that that is his view.
I want to put to the hon. Gentleman, however, the opposite view, which I subscribe to. I believe that, as a result of a change in the licence procedure which is embodied in the Bill, we are moving from a month by month situation of licensing to a day-by-day situation. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to agree that it is easy for people to remember and be conscious of the fact that their licence expires in any given calendar month.
A motorist who uses his car at all frequently sees on the windscreen the licence disc which indicates clearly the month in which the licence expires. The date of expiry is, therefore, continually drawn to a motorist's attention. In such circumstances it is reasonable to expect people to remember that 14 days after the end of the month they must renew their licence or be liable to prosecution.
A different situation will now arise, one in which on a given day a motorist will find that his licence expires. It will be much harder for motorists to hold in their memories the date of expiry. It would also be much harder for the disc on the windscreen to indicate as clearly as it now does the date of expiry.
I have considered what would be the practical effect of this change on the ordinary citizen. I believe that in practice, given a certain coincidence of dates, for a given number of people the two-month period which they now have in which to renew their licences would effectively be reduced to one month. For example, if one were planning to depart from this country on 15th April and one's licence expired in May, under the present law one would not have to renew one's licence before 14th June. If one went abroad on 15th April, one would have the whole of May in which the licence expired, and there would then be a fortnight after the end of May before one was likely to be prosecuted. Thus, anyone leaving the country on 15th April would have two months in which to renew his licence.
However, under the new system anybody leaving the country on 15th April who, in the extreme case—and I agree that it is the extreme case—received his first reminder by the second post, would have only two weeks before his licence

expired on 1st May. If, as is commonly the case, he went on holiday for four weeks, although he might remember that his licence expired in May, he might not remember the precise date and his 14 days of grace would expire on 15th May. Although the present position gives him a two-month period of flexibility, under the new system if he goes abroad on 15th April, he will not be able to plead the period of grace half-way through May. one month later.
A given number of people will find themselves in that situation. I do not pretend that it is an immense problem or that it will cause hardship throughout the country, but the situation would be that much better if the 14-day period were extended to a 30-day period, so that the contraction from two months was a contraction to six weeks. It would be extremely unlikely for people to be abroad for that length of time, certainly much less likely than people going abroad for four weeks, which is becoming more common within the increasing length of holidays.
I therefore ask the Minister to consider this situation again with a view to making an alteration in another place. This is a situation which will concern a number of people, and, although I do not believe that any hardship will be involved, I hope that the Government will be as flexible in their attitude towards this Amendment as they were to an Amendment which I suggested only recently.

Mr. Carmichael: Until the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) mentioned reminders at the end of his speech, he seemed to be suggesting that one would have to remember that one's licence was due on 1st May. He said that someone would remember that his licence was due by seeing a little disc on his vehicle. In Committee many hon. Members confessed that they did not notice when their licence was due and that it came as a shock when they were reminded of it by someone else. I remember a long discussion with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) about reminders, when I said that there would be not one but several reminders. Even the person who went away on 15th April, missing a reminder by minutes, would have another reminder, because he would fall


into the category of the absent-minded person who had forgotten even the reminder.
10.15 p.m.
As long as the person could clearly show that there was reason for his being away, he would be in the clear. If a person licences his vehicle from the date on which the previous licence expires there will never be any suggestion that the police or the local authority will prosecute. In this case the Minister institutes proceedings, and the safeguards are such that the honest citizen who has honestly failed in such a marginal case will be covered. The 30-day period in the new system will be rather important, and it could lead to abuse. The system of the 14-day period of grace is perfectly suitable, and I hope that with that explanation, and the various reminders which will be sent out, the hon. Member will realise that the honest person who has really forgotten and gone away at that vital time will be amply covered and there will be no likelihood of there being any witchhunt.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: May I put one point which I hope the Minister will reconsider? The period of 14 days is rather important. Under the present arrangements any extension of it could lead to abuse, in that certain unscrupulous people who have their vehicles on the road unlicensed and undetected for a time could obtain another licence as from a later date. Obviously there is scope for abuse. On the other hand, under the new system of continuous licensing, if someone has not given an indication that the vehicle will not be used, this danger is removed. To that extent the abuse which was there under the old arrangements will be removed under the new arrangement.
We appreciate that our Amendment, if accepted, would apply to the current situation, to prosecutions under the 1962 Act. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this point before the new system is introduced. The scope for evasion and dishonesty in the present arrangements during these 14 days will not be available when the new system comes into operation.

Mr. Carmichael: With permission, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that I will undertake to look at the problem which he has raised and perhaps write to him on it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 32, line 10, after '8(4)', insert '11(2)'.—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Schedule 2

AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1960 RELATING TO DRIVERS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 38, line 28, leave out ' "until" ' and insert ' "shall keep" '.

No. 50, in line 29, leave out ' "and ' and insert ' " may '.

No. 51, in page 38, line 35, leave out ' the remainder of '.

No. 52, in page 39, line 17, at end insert:
8. In section 241(2)(c)(ii) and (4) (a)(which among other things relate to the service of a notice on the owner of a vehicle) for the word ' owner ' there shall be substituted the word ' keeper '.—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment 53, in page 39, line 31 to leave out '(1) '.

Mr. Speaker: We can discuss, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.

Mr. Carmichael: These Amendments correct an omission in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 of the Bill. As drafted, the paragraph provides only for the destination of fines imposed in respect of offences committed in England and Wales under Clause 20 of the Bill. The Amendments provide that fines imposed in respect of offences under Clause 20 committed in Scotland shall also be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 54, in page 39, line 31, at end insert '(a) in subsection (1),'.

No. 55, in page 39, line 34, at end insert:
(b) in subsection (2) after the words ' Twelfth Schedule) ', in the second place where they occur there shall be inserted the words ' or a fine imposed in respect of an


offence under section 20 of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Act 1969'.—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put

forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (LICENCES AND CERTIFICATES)

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Public Service Vehicles (Licences and Certificates) (Amendment) Regulations 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 32), dated 10th January 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be annulled.
I am glad to have this opportunity of raising a number of matters concerning the Regulations and the system under which the licensing of buses and goods vehicles is carried out. This is an example of the detailed implementation of legislation which it is difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, a large number of people are involved and substantial sums of money are raised during the year from people who get their livelihood from these industries.
This opportunity arises as a result of the Government's decision to increase certain charges levied on the bus industry. Basically the Regulations have the effect of raising the cost of public service vehicle licences from £8 10s. to £12 10s., the cost of certificates of fitness issued in respect of buses from £5 10s. to £6 10s. and the cost of the notes and proceedings of the Traffic Commissioners from Is. to 2s. 6d.
The principle of the service undertaken by the traffic commissioners, being made self-supporting and the cost of that service being met by the people who use the services, is perfectly acceptable. But the Government's bland acceptance that, because the costs of the existing service have risen, those costs should be passed on without examination to those who use the services is not acceptable.
The principal purpose of raising this matter by way of a Prayer is to probe to what extent the Government have tried to avoid the increases in these charges which, on a percentage basis, are very significant in one area by finding other means of administering the activities of the traffic commissioners and the traffic courts themselves.
Anybody taking a fresh look at the system of licensing for public service vehicles will be anxious about a system

whereby, in order to put a public service vehicle on the road, a person must have a certificate of fitness, a public service vehicle licence, passenger insurance and a passenger service vehicle driver's licence. If he intends to charge separate fares to individual passengers, it is necessary for him to obtain a road service licence. In other words, five pieces of documentation are necessary to get a bus into service. These costs must be found by the people operating the buses. What is even more important is that the bureaucracy necessary to service a system of this kind must be maintained at the expense either of the industry or of the taxpayer.
It is necessary to obtain a public service vehicle licence as a legal document, because without it one is not entitled to ply for hire and reward. The people from whom it is obtained operate under two headings, first as traffic commissioners to regulate the bus industry, and secondly as the licensing authorities to regulate the goods side. It would seem from a casual investigation of the work that is done by these people that a great deal of probing could be profitable in terms of improved administration.
My first general question to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is to ask when the last examination of the work of the traffic commissioners was carried out. What consultations has the Ministry had recently—and how long ago was "recently"—with the traffic commissioners to see whether a more streamlined system could now be introduced?
The sort of example about which we would be interested to hear is whether any examination has been conducted to see whether any of the documents which are necessary could be brought together into one document. Is it not possible, for example, that the public service vehicle licence could be combined with the road tax licence? Is it not possible that the p.s.v. licence, the road tax and road service licences could in some form be brought together in one licence, which could be applied for at the same time?
Then there are the procedures of the traffic courts. An immensely detailed set of proposals is submitted continually by the bus industry covering every minute detail of its operation—the fares it charges and the stops it intends to make,


right down to the routes and every other small detail which is put before the commissioners and considered. As one would expect with a historically developed situation of this nature, there is a time-scale through which the procedure goes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member can help me. We are not discussing the Road Traffic Act. We are discussing five amendments to Regulations, four of which increase certain fees—the hon. Member may talk about those—and one of which imposes a fee. He may talk about that also.

Mr. Heseltine: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may explain. The traffic commissioners and the road licensing authorities are self-supporting. They have to conduct certain services. Those services have not proved to be economic. Therefore, the charges are being increased. My argument is that the way in which those services are conducted should have been examined before the charges were increased to see whether the increases could have been avoided.
One of the ways in which a great deal of time is wasted, and, therefore, costs are incurred, is that there is a slow process of stages through which any application to the traffic commissioners must go, not only a series of stages with attendant notifications to the police and other bus operators, but a series of printings of various applications which are made, all of which have to be distributed and published. Therefore, I would like to know whether the system could be streamlined and whether this possibility has been discussed with the licensing authorities.
Now, the charges themselves. Until the introduction of the Regulations, the public service vehicle licence cost £8 10s. It has remained at that figure since 1962, when it was increased from £6. The certificate of fitness is now to cost £6 10s., having previously cost £5 10s. The notices of proceedings have until recently been charged at 1s. and are now to cost 2s. 6d.
Looking at the rate by which the various charges are being increased, one cannot seriously question the increase of cost for certificates of fitness or notices of proceedings, except that the various services might be more expensive than they need

be; and if the costs of the service could have been reduced it would not have been as necessary to increase the cost of the p.s.v. licence. It is the cost of that licence which represents the major increased revenue which is achieved by these proposals.
This is where the first question about the charges arises. We must remember that these increased costs are borne in respect of each vehicle in each calendar year, so it is a substantial proportional increase, amounting since the last increase, to 7 per cent. per annum for each p.s.v. licence. How does the Parliamentary Secretary square this with the standard increases recommended by the Government in their dealings with the Prices and Incomes Board? It is double the norm. Has this charge been referred to the Board. Will it be? If not, why not? The cost to the industry of this increase—reached by multiplying the approximate number of buses by the extra £4—is about £¾ million.
What would the hon. Gentleman advise a p.s.v. operator to do if he has a fixed price contract with, say, a local education authority which refuses to accept any passing on of the extra cost? If this were the first increased cost for the industry it would be fair to say that £4 a year was not substantial, but only recently the industry has had to face repeated fuel tax increases, which are not refundable in the example which I gave, as they would be to a fare stage operator. How should such an operator absorb the increase? This might involve more than just local authorities.
Could not the road service licences, which are only a part of the operation, be extended from three years to five years, as they were originally extended from one year to three? This would produce an economy, although not a proportionate one.
Another way of reducing inefficiencies and delays comes from the detailed checking of routes when application is made for a particular journey. There may be objections to competition from other operators, but most objections come from local authorities or the police for reasons of public safety, which is right and proper. But the routes must be known on which these operators cannot be allowed. Could not a standard


list be produced? Then operators would not need to apply, because they would know that objections to certain routes. Exactly the same consideration applies not to scenic routes but, in London, to congested routes.
There are 11 traffic areas and each has a traffic court producing detailed accounts at varying frequencies of all applications, appeals, findings and changes resulting from considering those matters on which decisions must be made. I find it difficult to believe that much of the information produced in these documents—I have one with me; it is 80 pages long and is not bedtime reading—is required by anybody. Certainly I cannot believe that it is required weekly.
The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt reply that this material is no longer produced weekly. That is true, but it was produced weekly in four of the areas until this Prayer was tabled, whereupon instructions went out within three days to those four areas encouraging them to fall in line with the other seven areas, which produce reports on a fortnightly basis. That coincidence was noted. I can only presume that this was an administrative tidying up exercise which had not occurred to anybody until my hon. Friends began probing the matter.
But the process should not stop there. These documents are produced to an extremely high standard and the Ministry should investigate this. Need they be printed? Cannot they be duplicated? How much of this information is of value to those who get it? I have no objection to those concerned being asked to pay 2s. 6d. for these reports, but I would prefer their cost of production to be reduced and, while still charging the same price for them, some other charges now falling on the industry could be reduced. In other words, too much detail is being included in these documents and it would be profitable for the Ministry to conduct an examination into the whole matter.
It is fortunate that we should be discussing this matter tonight, because we have been considering establishing a computer centre in Swansea to handle the vehicle and road licensing system. What study has been made into whether a

part of the work of the traffic commissioners could be incorporated into that computer? At least some of the traffic court work could be incorporated; for example, by the computer storing details of licenses. Much of the work done by the 11 traffic areas overlaps and some of this could be hived off to the computer. Without a computer the possibilities of centralisation are restricted. Much of this information—it is not wanted frequently, but when it is wanted it is needed quickly—could be stored by the computer.
My hon. Friends and I want to be sure that before these costs were passed on, at a higher level than I believe was compatible with the Government's level of price increases, a genuine attempt was made to achieve some of the productivity about which Ministers are only too happy to talk on other occasions. It seems to me that there must be room for this productivity in this service; and that there must at present be overlapping and duplication within a system that has gone on since the 'thirties. Circumstances today are totally different, and I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us that the licensing requirements now operating are those which apply to today—nearly into the 'seventies—and not, as they were, to the 'thirties, in quite different trading conditions. I hope that he will be able to satisfy the House that it is a last resort that forced him to pass on these costs, and that every other reasonable step had first been taken to avoid his doing so.

10.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): Both sides of the House should be in accord that the public service vehicle licensing system, administered by the traffic commissioners, is a necessary piece of administration. The system is intended to ensure that buses and coaches which carry passengers for hire or reward are run by fit and proper persons; that the vehicles and drivers conform to proper standards, and that the regular public services are suitably regulated in the public interest. The system is generally endorsed by the operators themselves because of the support which it gives to the maintenance of standards for which the industry as a whole has a very good record.
Both sides of the House should also be in agreement that this licensing system should pay for itself, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) for at least conceding this point. This has been the settled principle, accepted by previous Administrations since the system was introduced in the 'thirties. It should be clear to all concerned that the system is not a revenue-earning or taxation instrument; the costs and receipts of the system should break even. and no more.
The Government are as concerned as the Opposition to ensure that any increases in costs, and therefore in fees, should be kept to the absolute basic minimum. It is appreciated that the present 40 per cent. increase in fees is substantial. It is, however, nearly seven years since the fees were last increased. Costs during that period have been going up, due to factors with which all employers have had to reckon. They arise from the pay awards for the Civil Service—which have, of course, all been approved in terms of the Government's incomes policy—and from increases in overheads, such as National Insurance, heating, lighting, postal and telephone charges.
It may be suggested that these factors ought to be offset by introducing economies into the system. During this period, and I emphasise this, there has been little change in the volume of work done in the traffic areas, or in the overall numbers of people employed. There has been no inflation of staff. I can give a firm assurance that the traffic areas' working methods are kept under continuous review. A general work-study programme has steadily been producing savings, especially on the clerical side, but savings on the clerical side will not be dramatic in terms of overall costs.
Any economies must therefore lie in cutting down on the procedures themselves. Before we enter into this field I suggest that we have to consider carefully whether what we do will be at the expense of the efficiency of the licensing controls and of the safeguards which these provide, because the nub of the matter is the safety of the general public. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman suggests any economies which would result in a worsening of safety standards.
It is the case that suggestions have come from the operators in the past, and they have renewed them when opposing these fees increases, for cutting down on the procedures. They have suggested, for example, though not unanimously, that conductors' licensing should be abolished. It is suggested that the p.s.v. licensing and excise licensing systems should be combined, but how this would greatly help the operators unless the Government were to forgo the revenue from the excise licence is not plain. The operators have suggested that the road service licensing procedures should be streamlined, but the procedure for publication of all these licensing proposals in all the traffic areas on the route, hearing proposals at public sittings and so on, has to be comprehensive in order to protect the interests of competing operators themselves.
Most of the changes that have been suggested would be fundamental or controversial and most of them would require primary legislation before they could be put into effect. What is more, the savings produced from the suggested changes if put in hand, both in terms of licensing costs and operators' costs would be comparatively small. I think I am quoting the hon. Member fairly. He said there would be a substantial proportionate increase. He referred to prices and incomes policy and the 3½ per cent. norm for salary increases.
The increases are not inconsistent with the Government's prices policy, as set out in paragraph 16 of the White Paper Cmnd. 3590. This recognises that increases may be necessary in certain circumstances. This case satisfies the criteria. The increased costs are due either to approved wage increases or to unavoidable increases in overheads and so forth. The scope for absorbing costs is small, if the system is to continue to do its job. No one has suggested anything that will produce any large savings. It is not intended to recover the arrears of deficit, but the wide gap that now exists between expenditure and receipts must be bridged in future to safeguard the taxpayer. We are increasing fees by no more than is necessary to provide for foreseeable costs, and to avoid further fees revisions, in the next three or four years ahead.
If we do not make these increases, of necessity the deficit must rank as public expenditure because it will fall on the taxpayer. It ill behoves any hon. Member opposite to berate the Government about the level of public expenditure as they do day after day and yet adopt this type of attitude when we take steps to reduce public expenditure. It is not possible to go on playing the two ends against the middle.

Mr. Heseltine: I went out of my way to make clear that that was precisely what I was not trying to do.

Mr. Brown: That is precisely what the hon. Member tried to do in praying against an Order of this type without giving any concrete proposals.
The third point was in relation to the poor operator who had a fixed price contract with a local education authority. How is he to carry this increase of £4 on the p.s.v. licence? The last increase was seven years ago. The one before was five years earlier and the one before that five years earlier still. I am certain that no one tendering for a fixed price contract would not foresee that after six—nearly seven—years this was a decided possibility. I am not so naive as to accept that a person tendering for a fixed-price contract for taking children to school, for example, will not be wide enough awake to embody contingencies of this type. The hon. Gentleman has made a thin case there.
The hon. Gentleman laid stress on the question of the substantial proportionate increases. I have not attempted to deny that 40 per cent. or so is a substantial proportionate increase. But, if we are to talk in these terms, it is fair to compare our record with that of the Conservative Government. In 1952, they made an increase of 100 per cent. in p.s.v. licences, whereas we are making an increase of 47 per cent., which is rather less substantial. Again, we are proposing an increase of 18 per cent. for the certificate of fitness—and I agree that this, too, is substantial. But the increase made by the Conservatives was 66⅔ per

cent., so our 18 per cent. increase is not nearly as substantial as that.
I come now to the question of extending the period of the licences to five years. This subject is continuously under review, but I do not think that any one, save in the wildest flight of fancy, could seriously suggest that this would give us any sizeable saving.
Then there is the question of the production of the detailed accounts by the traffic areas. This is something which has been done for a number of years, as the hon. Gentleman himself said. The eleven courts produce detailed figures and statistics. I am convinced that there would be a hue and cry if we were to try and dispense with these statistics. He asked whether we could not do this more cheaply, whether we could not duplicate it. But duplication of things in the quantities involved would be a great deal more costly than printing, once the cost of type-setting was met.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of what part of the traffic commissioners' work could be done by computer in Swansea. This we shall also be looking at in future. Once we get the computer in operation at Swansea, we might be able to effect economies, but again I do not hold out great hopes of this vast economies here because, as I have said, the question of making economies generally is constantly under review in the operation of the traffic commissioners' offices.
I come now to the question of a merger of the two licences. One is an Exchequer revenue charge and the other is more or less in the form of an identity disc. One is a £2 million Exchequer revenue and if we issued only one type of licence we would still have the administrative costs of two Departments in sorting it all out. Therefore, again I doubt whether any great savings could accrue from such a move. Having said that, when we look at the proposals in the cold light of day, if there is anything that the hon. Gentleman has said which will offer us any savings, we shall be only too delighted to take it up.

Question put and negatived.

RIDDINGS IRONWORKS (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: This is not the first time that I have raised in this House the problems of the Alfreton area, but I sincerely hope that it will be the last time.
I am profoundly grateful that it is the duty of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs to reply to this debate, because there is nobody in the present Government who understands the problems of this area better than he does. He has made a recent visit to the area and he has talked with the people concerned. He has established first name contact with the trade union people and the industrialists, and when I talk to him about the problems of this area I know that I am talking to a person not only who understands but who is a friend in the strict and literal sense of that word.
I have to raise this problem because the decision has been made by the British Steel Corporation to close the Riddings Ironworks. This is an ironworks which has been established for a long time and it is being closed in accordance with the rationalisation measures which the British Steel Corporation has embarked upon.
It is impossible for me on the Floor of the House to challenge these rationalisation measures in detail. I cannot even pose a question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power about the considerations which prompted the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation to order this closure. For that and many other reasons I do not propose at this stage to challenge the decision that was made. The main reason why I do not do so is that negotiations are now proceeding between the trade unions concerned and the British Steel Corporation, and I have learned enough to know that one must never charge in when negotiations are proceeding between employers and trade unionists. I hope my right hon. Friend will take note of

that observation in relation to a subsequent debate.
The point about this closure is that it hits an area which has already been very savagely hit by pit closures. Everybody agrees that there must be a restructuring of industry. Everybody knows, moreover, that there must be a progressive closure of enterprises which are no longer economically viable. But I think it is the general consensus of opinion in this House that social considerations must also be considered as well as balance-sheet considerations. In other words, if enterprises are to close for possibly good economic reasons, those persons who have invested their lives in those enterprises must also be considered. It is in this light that I address my hon. Friend tonight.
I submit that this closure, whether justified or not—and whether it is justified is the subject of vigorous argument elsewhere in which I intend to participate strongly—hits an area which has already been too savagely hit by the process of industrial restructuring.
I will give a few figures to illustrate that simple proposition. When I was first elected for the constituency, which includes the Alfreton Urban District, there were many collieries in full production. By the end of March, 1969, there will not be a single colliery in the area employing workers in the area. In other words, an entire industry has contracted to the point of disappearance. I am not whining about this, I am not moaning about it, and I am not leading protest demonstrations, because I fully recognise the problem is not so much one of keeping uneconomic pits in existence as of bringing new industries into the area to absorb the labour liberated by the closure of the pits.
I have said on at least four occasions on the Floor of the House that labour thus liberated is probably the best labour in the country, and I have here a file of testimonials from employers testifying that former mining labour can be trained very easily, and is probably the best labour that is available.
In December, 1968, 1,000 men in the Alfreton Urban District were unemployed, representing 8·2 per cent. of the male employable population. If I may anticipate remarks which may later be


made, it is perfectly true that there is an amplitude of labour opportunities for females. In many respects the statistics of unemployment tend not to give the correct picture, because in this area, as in so many others, a distinction must be drawn between opportunities for male and female labour.
My hon. Friend, who has had a close and recent association with the local authorities in the area, must concede that no local authority or group of local organisations could have worked harder to deal with the consequences of pit closures than those in the Alfreton Urban District. They have been down here in deputations to the D.E.A. and to the Board of Trade, and have made their own independent approaches to industrialists, including one spectacular approach on the David Frost programme. No local organisations could have made better efforts to attract industry to this area. This has to some extent been effective, in spite of the fact that Government policy—and I accept this policy—is plainly stated as being one of attracting most industrial development towards the development areas. Taking advantage of the benevolent attitude of the Board of Trade towards the grey areas in the issue of industrial development certificates, the local authority has been able to provide employment for 550 workers. That is not a figure that impresses the House of Commons. When one normally talks in terms of millions that is not a very impressive figure, but in relation to an urban district council or area that has come to the House or Government Departments whining, protesting and raising hell. It has tried very hard to help itself, and its efforts were recognised recently by my hon. Friend who is to reply and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
When one considers the efforts that have been made to attract industry, through deputations here and approaches to industrialists; when one looks at the area as ore that is trying desperately to lift itself up by its bootstraps from the consequences of an industrial restructuring which it never planned and never made, but for which it must suffer the consequences; one can only say, as I say now, that to inflict this latest disaster of the possible redundancy of 400 workers is to inflict too much.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I visited his constituency nearly a year ago, for purposes with which he may not be in complete sympathy, I was told that his constituents were most grateful to him for having obtained an assurance that the Riddings Ironworks was not in jeopardy? This was the assurance given by the previous Minister. Is not what is being done and the way in which it is being done very similar to the disastrous events which surrounded the closing of Millom Ironworks?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful for that intervention. As I said at the outset, I do not propose to challenge the closure as such tonight. Having said that. I wish completely to endorse everything the hon. Gentleman has just said. I feel a sense of bitterness and betrayal at the fact that I have to stand here tonight in the face of an assurance given to me nine months ago that these works were not in jeopardy. But for technical reasons I want merely to deal with the consequences of the closure, and that is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs, is to reply to the debate instead of a Minister from the Ministry of Power.
Since it was reported in the Press that I was to have this debate I have had a flood of letters from every organisation in the Alfreton area. There are moving letters from trade unionists and very sympathetic letters from industrialists, but perhaps the most important letters I have received came from religious leaders. The Vicar of Alfreton writes:
I went through all this in County Durham at the beginning of my ministry in 1932. It will be indeed disappointing if my ministry draws to a close in Alfreton in the same atmosphere of depression and disillusion.
In a sense, the Vicar of Alfreton states very clearly what I am trying to say. The added blow of this recent closure, when considered in relation to the efforts which have been made by the local authority, local industrialists and, if I may venture to say so, even by the local M.P., to attract industry to the area, brings disillusionment and despair to a whole area. Many people spoke to me last weekend of Alfreton as a ghost town. I do not accept that as an accurate description, but it is an indication of


the spreading despair that people should use that kind of language.
I accept, as every hon. Member on these benches accepts, that to sentence a man to unemployment is to sentence him to a destruction of the spirit that is even worse than sentencing him to death by the bullet. I think this is so and is generally accepted. What the people in the Alfreton district want to hear tonight from my hon. Friend, who is a friend of theirs—he established that fact in a recent visit; he knows their language; he knows their problems—is that, in spite of this closure, in spite of the previous pit closures, in spite of the closures which will give us in the end an unemployment rate of about 10–12 per cent., he in his Department is working on plans that will bring industry and employment to this afflicted area, because the area asks for nothing more than the opportunity to work.
I have said in the House before, and I repeat it now, that we have the labour, and it is good labour. We have the sites, and they are good sites. This could be a growth area which could set an example to the entire country. All I ask from my hon. Friend tonight is that he and his whole Department are working on plans to achieve this end so that this disastrous closure can in the future be seen only as a sort of pause, a halting mark, a comma, in what is going to be a glorious story of industrial progress.

11.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin): The House has for some time recognised the tireless manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) attempts to resolve the very difficult problems of his constituency through the various avenues which are available to him. We are deeply indebted to him this evening for the constructive manner and the clarity which he has presented his case on behalf of his constituents. It is evident that he has a deep concern for those who elected him as their representative in 1964.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of dealing a little more fully with the employment situation in the Alfreton area than was possible for my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State within the scope of his reply to my learned Friend's Questions on 10th February. I understand very well the concern felt locally at the news of the likely closure of the ironworks. As my hon. Friend has emphasised, male unemployment in the area has increased very sharply over the past 18 months as a result of the closure of a number of pits.
If the February total of 1,232 men unemployed were to be substantially increased as a result of the closure of the ironworks and the closure of the "A" Winning colliery, the economic situation in the neighbourhood would be serious. I hope, however, to be able to show that any additional unemployment resulting from these closures is likely to be on a much more limited scale than has been suggested.
Dealing first with the ironworks, it is worth noting again that the British Steel Corporation has not announced a final decision to close the ironworks. What it has done is, in accordance with the best practice, to bring the unions and other interests into consultation on the view they have formed that one of the moves necessary to put the steel industry in the area on a proper economic footing is to close Riddings and concentrate production elsewhere. There is no question of closing the ironworks before the end of July this year, and not before the desirability of this course has been confirmed following the consultations to which I refer. I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right in refusing to allow himself to be drawn into this difficult problem at this stage, when consultations are in fact taking place.
Closure of the ironworks does not, however, mean that the whole labour force will be thrown out of work. As part of their overall plan for the area, the Corporation hope to recruit a high proportion—more than three-quarters—of the existing labour force of 356 for employment at their Stanton and Staveley works, which are within travelling distance of Riddings and at which the operating level is to be increased.
I fully recognise the adjustments which the necessity to travel to work will mean in the everyday lives of the men affected. But the works in question are well within the distances which a large part of the population of this country already—and


increasingly—travel to work. I understand that the British Steel Corporation for its part, intends to help by making transport: available. It is to be hoped that as many as possible of the men concerned will take the opportunities available to them of continuing in the employment for which they are specially fitted by years of experience. If full advantage is taken of the offer of employment, there is every reason to hope, allowing for normal wastage, that all but a few redundancies can be avoided.
It is very natural for the men affected to ask why the particular plant in the area to be closed should be that at which they work. This is a matter which will no doubt be pursued in the consultations with the unions to which I have referred. As the House knows, however, planning the reorganisation of that part of the steel industry which is under its control is, in the first place, the responsibility of the Corporation. What is involved here is its judgment on how, given the capacity coming into commission at the new mechanised foundry at Holwell, existing production can be most economically organised.
I am also able to give a good deal of reassurance about the effect on the local level of unemployment of closure of the "A" Winning colliery at Blackwall, currently scheduled for the end of next month. In this case also, there is no question of all the men currently employed becoming redundant. The outlook for continued production at this pit has been doubtful for some time, given the approaching exhaustion of reserves and recent unprofitability. In such circumstances, closure is in accordance with the National Coal Board's policy of achieving a streamlined and viable industry able to meet the keen competition that faces it from other forms of energy.
But on the assumption that closure takes place as planned at the end of next month, there will be opportunities for continued employment in the industry for 700 of the existing labour force of 953 at pits nearby where operations continue. While this implies redundancy of about 250 men, a large number of the current labour force are over 55 years of age—more than 100 are over 60—and so will be eligible for payments under the Government's scheme for payments to redundant mineworkers.
I realise, of course, that these men would prefer to continue in the employment in which they have spent their working life. However, the scheme to which I have referred has proved its worth in mitigating effects on mineworkers who, at a late stage in their career, become redundant. "A" Winning colliery is the nearest pit to Alfreton of the remaining pits in the area, but there are a number of other pits within reach. Of these only New Hucknall is in jeopardy at present, but in this case there is as yet no decision about closure.
There are well over 1,700 vacancies in coalmining currently notified to the Department of Employment and Productivity for the East Midlands Planning Region as a whole. While there is none in the Alfreton Employment Exchange area, there are nevertheless 73 vacancies available within reasonable travelling distance. These are, of course, apart from the 700 jobs available for miners becoming redundant at "A" Winning to which I have referred.
What I have said so far is intended to enable the likely effect of these particular closures to be kept in proper perspective. But I am anxious that I should not in the process leave any impression that it is the Government's view that the present level of unemployment, and in particular of male unemployment, in the Alfreton employment exchange area is something simply to be accepted. This is by no means the case. My hon. Friend has indicated that he recognises the serious problems involved in the restructuring of industry and especially as it applies to the coal mining industry. There are many of us, if I may wear my constituency hat for a moment, who represent constituencies and areas which have long felt the impact of the recession in mining, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that we are closely conversant with the many problems which arise when pits are closed.
Certainly I recognise that at 8·7 per cent., the current level of male unemployment, is not only substantially higher than the national average, but also higher than that of the East Midlands Region as a whole and of the neighbouring parts of the Nottingham-Derbyshire coalfield. As I have said, the Alfreton area has suffered greatly since 1967 from the effects of the contraction of the coal industry. Of 1,218 men unemployed in December,


1968—the last count made by the D.E.P. for which an occupational analysis was made—802, two-thirds, were men last employed in coalmining.
For those who are suitable for training for other employment there are excellent facilities within daily travel distance at the Government training centre at Long Eaton. Analysis of the unemployment register, however, shows that a very high proportion of unemployed mine-workers on it are over 55 years of age, or disabled. While I fully recognise that men over 55 who are able to work would prefer to remain in employment, the Government's scheme considerably helps the older redundant mineworker who is unable to find new employment.
My hon. Friend, who has made commendable efforts to improve the difficult situation in his constituency, referred to the visit which I made to the area last summer when I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting many local authority representatives. I was deeply impressed by the willingness of local authorities to make their contribution to the creation of new employment opportunities. In this connection, Alfreton Urban District Council is entitled to its share of the credit for the resource it has shown in taking steps to meet the need for new job opportunities locally by developing its own industrial estate at Cotes Park. Local initiative of this kind makes a vital contribution towards improving the industrial prospects of an area, and is most welcome.
I realise that there is some disappointment that, even with the sympathetic cooperation of the Board of Trade in the granting of i.d.c.s. for suitable projects, only part of the space available on the council's estate has so far been taken up, but I may mention that those firms which have already taken sites provide an interesting and useful diversity of employment which is so badly needed in an area of this kind. I am sure that it is only a matter of time until this enterprise,

designed to improve the attractions of Alfreton for industry, produces the desired results.
As to what action can be taken by the Government; assurances have already been given by the Board of Trade that the attention of industrialists with suitable projects for expansion will be drawn to areas such as Alfreton affected by colliery closures and that applications for industrial development certificates will be viewed sympathetically. These assurances stand unchanged. It has been suggested from time to time that some form of Government assistance should be provided for Alfreton and similar areas.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Hunt Committee has made an examination of these areas—and almost the whole of my hon. Friend's area is relevant—which are now known as intermediate areas. The Hunt Committee has completed its report and it is expected to be published in six to eight weeks. This is clearly not the moment to pronounce one way or another on the claims of Alfreton, or of any other area with a high level of unemployment, for Government assistance. But it is worth noting at this stage that the employment situation of the Alfreton employment exchange area, black as it seems when viewed in isolation, is in many respects more promising than that of the development areas as a whole. Its location alone gives it considerable advantage—close to the M.l and main railway lines and on the line of traffic between North-East and South-West England. This, combined with its proximity to areas within reasonable travel-to-work distance which, in the view of the Regional Economic Planning Council——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.